At 16:25 25/10/2010, Rémi Després wrote:
Now, considering that working with hosts using global IPv6 addresses
"doesn't work well for customers", is contrary to my experience as a
user of Free.fr since 2008.
IMHO, stating it can only increase unjustified FUD about IPv6.
I certainly concur with this.
Local IDs with global scope (what we call IDv6 for clarity sake) is
most probably the overlooked user need that explains the user
disinterest (and lack of funding) in IPv6. Idealy IP universal
addresses should have been initially built as IPv4+IDv6. Our current
post IDNA2008 (*) considerations of the Internet Use Interface (IUI,
i.e. the user side independent location of a better use of the
Internet) lead us to consider such a user centric addressing support.
Also to use it to support a cross technology/addressing plans unified
addressing. In such an approach the translatted address is the
network part of the address depending on the used (Internet or
others) service provider, not the user part.
(*) IDNA2008 has introduced a possible new yet respectfull user
reading of the same Internet architecture supporting what Fuller
would call "multiplication by division", centering the network on its
diversified use rather than on its operations. It did it, at the
occasion of the needs resulting from linguistic diversity, in
exemplifying how the Internet architecture copes with any diversity.
This is something the IETF and IUsers communities must digest and
experiment. There are several engaged possibly converging efforts to
that end. At this stage, my own work is initially in the IDN+IDv6 area.
jfc
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
