> My crystal ball is as cloudy as anyone's. But I would expect that it is all > a matter of economics. I very much agree with you on this point. The problem is that right now it's too hard to sell IPv6 (in the literal sense of the word). I believe that one of the reasons for this is that some features that are theoretically distinctly easier to realise with IPv6, e.g. easier end-to-end security or de-NAT-ification because of bigger address space, need a lot of improvement and development to be deployable in a commercial surrounding. E.g., unless there are (simplified speaking) stable and good interoperable IPsec implementations for improved end-to-end security and a good number of firewalls with stateful filtering to really replace current v4 solutions that employ NAT, it will be difficult to convince sales people that there actually is something about IPv6 that can be sold as a feature that makes it better than IPv4 (if we leave aside IPv4 address exhaustion for the moment).
It would make sense to look into which implementations need to be programmed first to create a market for IPv6 and to write proposals on what kind of implementations that might be. However, I believe that this is not the IETF's task, or is it? Cheers, Christian -- JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Strauf A DFN project Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung Team: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Röntgenstrasse 9-13 Priv: [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-48149 Münster / Germany GPG-/PGP-Key-ID: 1DFAAA9A Fon: +49 251 83 31639, Fax: +49 251 83 31653 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
