On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:24:00 +0200 (CEST) > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > >>> And all you'll end up with is IPv4 with bigger addresses. You really >>> should catch up with the useful features of protocols that were >>> designed in the late 80s / early 90s, like IPX, Appletalk, DECNet and >>> CLNS. >> >> For me "more addresses" is the *only* justification for IPv6. All the >> other "useful" features are either uninteresting or even *unwanted*. >> > > Just so I know, are you confirming that you've only ever used IPv4, and > know nothing about any other protocols and how they worked? > > Your view seems to me to be a bit like saying, "I'm perfectly happy > with my 1970s car, it gets me from A to B, and I see no reason to have > electric windows, anti-lock brakes, electronic fuel injection, or a GPS, > because my 1970s car doesn't have them".
If customers were saying they wanted "network based security" more people would be offering it. Problem is that most providers set the price of $security_thing (either 2547-style vpn, etc..) as something too costly or external auditors don't sign-off on it, so they say: give me $dumb_pipe @ 5G/s and toss their own IPSec/VPN/whatnot device/appliance on-top of it. The biggest feedback I hear from people about IPv6 (besides the extra bits for addressses) is "Security", but they generally don't know what that is outside marketing speak. Saying that your 1970's car doesn't have an onboard GPS is correct, but that doesn't mean the customer won't just get a $200 aftermarket at walmart. Is that ideal for the $car_mfg? Surely it is a hit on the profit margin, but overall customers are just asking for $dumb_pipe @ 5Gb/s @ $low_low_price_per_meg. - Jared -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
