>> ... >> I'll bet if we had a single IPv4 over IPv6 solution which had >> a clear operating cost savings over Dual-Stack, and also over >> IPv4-only+CGN, that we'd be at universal deployment of IPv6 >> already. > > Since we are engaged in a counterfactual guessing / betting > game, I'd bet that would be true had we defined such a solution > a decade ago, that it were realistic, and that we had stuck to > it. At this stage, the cartoon is relevant -- not only would we > be likely to add another method to the list when existing ones > already have their advocates, but dropping two or three would > not be enough to make a significant difference. ngtrans et al, standardised somewhere in the area of 14 transition mechanisms for IPv6 transition. the experience from that, was that it was really hard to know a priori which mechanism would succeed (e.g. 6rd) and which would hinder IPv6 deployment (6to4, Teredo). we're in the same situation with the mechanisms for the IPv4 endgame, and all we can do is throw spaghetti on the wall. while standardising every possible solution, isn't quite standardising at all in my book, I don't have any good proposals for what we can do better. is there a problem here, or should we just accept that sometimes the IETF will generate ten sets of publications solving more or less the same problem? cheers, Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail