On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The difference has been significant on my end. The advantage of end-to-end connectivity to/from hosts previously only behind a NAT is remarkable. So is ALL THE ADDRESS SPACE that I now have available, without extra charges from the local telco/cableco. I don't think that I am ready to give up on v6 deployment across the entire internet just yet... these things take time.
Scott > > > --On 17. november 2004 06:55 -0500 Noel Chiappa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6. > > > > OK, I'll bite. > > > > Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large > > part of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the > > functional difference between: > > > > - A host which has an IPv6 only address, which it cannot use (without > > "borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with IPv4-only > > hosts out on the global Internet. > > > > - A host which has an IPv4 local-only address, which it cannot use > > (without "borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with > > other IPv4 hosts out on the global Internet. > > that the former can communicate with all other nodes with globally > reachable IPv6 addresses, without having to borrow a global IPv4 address to > do so? > > I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out whether this is a > *significant* functional difference - but it *is* a functional difference, > and that was what you asked for, Noel.... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
