> I don't claim to represent all views on IPv6. I *do* claim that a view > that "more addresses" is the only justification for IPv6 is reasonably > widespread.
you don't want mandatory ipsec, longer battery life, ...? :) 96 more bits, no magic -- gaurab the problems existing operators (who just want to add v6 and not go to the cathedral of ipv6 religion) hit in deployment are 96 more bits and not all the features they use in ipv4. dhcp and vrrp, as you mention. but net management would be nice too, though that is not as much ietf issue. again, we need to make it EASY for people to deploy ipv6 on their networks. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
