-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dan Lanciani wrote:
<SNIP> > I strongly doubt that IPv6 will be available as a > software-only upgrade for any but the latest equipment. There is just too little > incentive for vendors (especially ones who have gone out of business :) to > support "legacy" hardware (where "legacy" seems to mean over six months old). Endusers usually only have their OS's and some kind of access device. OS's (Windows, Linux, Solaris, *BSD) all have IPv6 support. As for the access devices this indeed differs as there are a couple of techniques to get the IPv6 to that enduser. Most of the access devices are too simple and are mostly NAT boxes nowadays which most people call 'routers' (ouch). These won't sport IPv6 quickly indeed but we have a number of transition mechanisms to overcome that problem fortunatly. As Jordi Palet's draft points out most of the NAT's can be configured per software to allow IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels, using Teredo we fix anything else. There is a reason btw why Microsoft invented Teredo, they where running into much too many barriers and hooks when wanting to deploy internet-worked gaming for both Xbox and Windows platforms where NAT's are the culprit as the hosts don't have global addressability which really really is the biggest problem of IPv4 because many ISP simply don't pass you more than one IP because that is their business plan and you have to give them much more money for those IP's. Basically that boils to: ISP's should sell bandwidth *NOT* IP space. They should ofcourse only route the IP's delegated to the enduser. And not anything else. > |Functionality won't disappear unless people turn off IPv4, which I > |don't expect them to do. > > Sure, but that's basically saying that IPv6 + IPv4+NAT can > replace IPv4+NAT, which isn't very interesting. :) It is perfectly interresting as I have been using this setup personally for almost the last 3 years now using a smoothly running IPv6 tunnel. It's very useful when having only 1 IPv4 address and a /48 IPv6 @ home allowing all the machines to really communicate with eachothers. With the advent of Netmeeting sporting IPv6 and various VoIP applications this will become very interresting as it solves all the NAT problems. > |(I even get strange looks from people in IPv6 > |circles when I say I want to run IPv6-only hosts for test purposes.) > > That's a rather telling response... One can do with 1 IPv4 address just like now: NAT it :) > Remember that the original assertion that I questioned was > that IPv6 could substitute for IPv4+NAT. I think we have > a long way to go before it can. IMHO it can when most applications are upgraded to use IPv6. When the gaming industry (Sony's Playstation, Microsoft's Xbox) pick up internetworked gaming this will lift off. > |But I think > |we can and should add all the missing stuff to IPv6. > > Naturally I agree, but it seems like one of the key features (address > independence) is a stumbling block. Then we really need to fix that. <SNIP> > I've been wondering that myself lately. Possibly IPv6 will > be useful in circumstances where the provider can control the user's > environment via restricted firmware, legal means, etc. There is no way to stop a user which you gave some method of reaching an outside server which is not under you control to tunnel anything through that connection including IPv6. <SNIP> > I understand that actual end-user requirements are not a > major consideration for IPv6 development. The enduser wants one thing: it needs to work(tm) > an individual networks his own computers and > connects that network to the internet as in the > pre-commercial model. Which won't scale as that would require to much routing information and administration in the RIR's. <SNIP> > -We do something to satisfy the users' requirements without > making them resort to NAT, possibly upsetting providers who > will need to adjust their business models. The typical enduser that plays games, does filesharing and communicates with others (MSN/ICQ/Jabber/...) requires global addressability to do these functions, they don't want NAT. But they don't complain because there is nothing else. <SNIP> > -We do something radical to prevent users from employing > NAT-like solutions, possibly failing by succeeding if those > users reject the protocol. You can't prevent this in any way, a user can do with their IP whatever they want and they will. You can disencourage them though just like ISP's threaten users to 'disconnect users who use their service with more than one computer' just if that ISP can see that you are using more than one with MSN :) <SNIP> > Your statement is extremely misleading, comparing apples and > turnips. It is true that _a_ network connected without NAT > enjoys a slightly larger > set of capabilities (though they are capabilities that are > not important to the typical NAT user) Let me put it this way: they want their mp3's (-> warez). Thus they need to do P2P as they know no other way. This requires a non-NATted IP. They want to game, which requires a client and a server. Of at least the server needs to be non-NATted. If 2 friends have NAT networks and usually they do nowadays they can't play their favourite expensive game together because they are stuck behind a NAT. > The correct comparison, then, is between a NAT-connected network > and a network that is not connected to the internet at all. > Which one enjoys greater capability? The NAT connected network with an IPv6 tunnel :) Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP5OhgymqKFIzPnwjEQJjYACeMLhdkXIJ0XjwA17R8HBbcPFYVpAAn0GR 3ROBVqHnCpVs1XJ2gaECaKJC =0s/D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
