Hi,
Not to fall victim of oversimplifying the issue, I think the major
problem was the general mindset of using (and forcing down people's
throats) an "One Size Fits All" IPv6 solution across the board.
When one is privy to work with unlimited resources, anything is
possible. Everyone must agree and plus "our products and services will
work better." Unfortunately, it is not market reality when
resources are limited, which was the heart of the problem and the key
point the OP reference article [1] hits home with,
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://hector.wildcatblog.com
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/31/ipv6_sucks_for_smes
Christian Huitema wrote:
Unlike some others, I'm still not convinced that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the IPv6 design
although I believe that we could have made it either easier to deploy or
that we could have offered more incentives for deployment.
IPv6 is, fundamentally, IPv4 with bigger addresses. I am hearing two kinds of critics. On one hand, some regret the lost opportunity to break from the IPv4 design and do something more radical, e.g. ID/locator separation. On the other hand there are those who wish that IPv6 was even more like IPv4, including the use of NAT and other such practices, so network administrators could keep a familiar setting. Of course, the two critics are contradictory, as a radical change in design would indeed require administrators to learn radically new methods.
Thinking back, I do not regret the opportunity lost. The Internet grew tremendously between 1992 and 2012, and that very growth proves that the IPv4 design was pretty good. We could do much worse than keeping that design for IPv6. I have much more sympathy for the other side of the critic, that IPv6 is in some ways too different from IPv4. We may want to take a deep look there!