----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > let's see. everyone acknowledges that NATs are easier to deploy than IPv6,
Deployment of IPv6 (as defined by purists) may take a long time or never happen. The usage of IPv6 technology to deploy more rational solutions is happening now. This is similar to the way Unix deployment was slowed in the late 70s by people ("selling to the market") solutions such as DOS. There does not appear to be much of a market for people interested in 128-bit native IPv6 connections. There is a large market for people willing to divide those 128 bits into a 64-bit field for the existing IPv4 Internet and a 64-bit field for their new persistent addresses. ISPs do not want to face renumbering. ISPs also do not want to be held hostage by the ICANN/IETF/ARIN/RIPE/APNIC tax collectors. After all, why use a Free Operating System like Linux or FreeBSD and then pay $25,000 every year to rent IPv6 addresses ? IPv8 Address Space is free for the taking, to the pioneers that want it. This is similar to land homesteaded by early pioneers in the U.S. Jim Fleming http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt