[address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space

That doesn't answer what you believe about all those deploying v6, for whatever reasons they are deploying it ... (Reasons that vary from environment to environment)


If you want me to start listing the technical merits of IPv6 I would first point you to a plethora of sources - working groups, RFCs, whitepapers, new product lines and modes of communication, etc.  - are you really asking for a single email to encompass 10+ years of work by hundreds+ people?  ((I can (and do!) talk about IPv6 for a week at a time and am still time-constrained to present all of the how's, why's, and what's of IPv6 ... The majority of this time is presenting IPv6 things which are technically better than their IPv4 analogs))

FWIW, I would also include entire conversations about how NAT is not a panacea, and already breaks / limits application capabilities, carries 'costs' of it's own (both literal $, packet/forwarding overhead, security), etc.  Again - not a single aspect that can readily be presented in a single email (feel free to ref. BEHAVE, for example)

Again - I am not opposed to efforts to make NAT more transparent / functional ... PMP, ALD, UPnP, perhaps e2e, etc. - however I see none of these as a replacement for IPv6, nor any other aspect of IPv6 that is a deal-breaker.  Imperfections that perhaps need to be mitigated (whether that is a protocol or an implementation 'fix' remains to be seen) - but nothing preventing me (or anyone else) from using v6 today (or, even more common - belated vendor support - ugh).


/TJ
------Original Message------
From: Masataka Ohta
To: TJ Evans
Cc: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
Sent: Jul 23, 2009 18:26

trejrco at gmail.com wrote:

> I continue to be amazed at statements like:
> "Today, it is not necessary to deploy IPv6 at all."
> 
> So, you firmly believe that everyone deploying (or preparing to
> deploy) IPv6 today is ... What, wasting time?  Wrong?  Stupid?  

As I said:

> Technically speaking , so true. 
> Today, it is not neccesary to deploy IPv6 at all.

valid counter arguments to me should have technical content.

							Masataka Ohta




Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry