So the real question is: Given NAT, what are the best
solutions to the long term challenges?
A protocol that would be only v4 with more bits in the first place, with
routers / NAT boxes that would pad/unpad extra zeroes (also including
extra TBD fields). As this would be 100% compatible with v4 this could
be deployed without too many headaches.
huh? there is no way to make a protocol that can address more hosts
than v4, that is 100% compatible with v4. and there's no good way to
divide up the net into v4 enclaves and v6 enclaves because the
applications that need v6 addressing don't fit neatly into enclaves.
Today, 90% of the phones in the world are still analog. Including mine,
in the capital of California and my buddies' in the heart of Silicon
Valley.
Today, 99+% of the hosts in the world still run v4, including mine and
99+% of the reader's hosts.
and at some delta-T in the future, some things will be different. it
might (or might not) be that lots more hosts run v6, it might (or might
not) be that NATs are discredited, it might (or might not) be that the
Internet mostly exists to connect walled gardens. the fact that
people have made incorrect predictions in the past does not mean that
today's predictions that you want to be incorrect, are incorrect.
we can't say for certain that IPv6 will ever take off like gangbusters,
nor that it will replace IPv4. all that we can do is try to design
protocols for a network that we think we'd like to have, and design
transition paths that we hope are attractive.
personally I'm tired of the arguments about how we got to where we are.
I want to discuss how we get out of this mess.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
