From: Masataka Ohta Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 10:41 PM
Batz;
:Are you saying that there has been some studies done on IPv6 that it :does offer dynamic addressing, authentication and improved security? : :Where can I find it?
I'm assuming you're being facetious.
I* (including but not limited to "I" and "IPv6") are facetious, of course.
??? please clarify ...
If not, how long should we expect to have to tolerate vendor hubris and bad hacks to get around depleted address space?
First, vendors of IPv6 address space should seriously tell vendors of Internet service supply IPv6 service.
Then, vendors of Internet service should seriously tell vendors of routers that they really supply IPv6 capable routers.
And there will be a v6-capable Internet, only after which there will be some good reason, beyond curiosity, to deploy v6 on private production networks.
And then, we can get around depleted address space.
This appears to be a classic chicken and egg issue. Which comes first? I am perfectly willing to deploy private-side IPv6, if I had a reason to do so. Without IPv6 support in the core, there seems little reason to do so. Perhaps, IPv6 substituting for NAT'd space? I don't know if it's even possible. The bottom-line appears that everyone is waiting for everyone else to twitch first, then the shoot-out starts. However, no one is all that interested in twitching. It also appears that everyone seems to be pointing at the legacy /8's whenever the subject of IP allocation shortages come up (with some possible justification). IPv6 seems to be a means of ignoring that problem and everyone knows it. The issue seems to be whether the consensus will allow us to ignore that problem and move on, or rat-hole on that problem while we live with IP rationing. The real question is whom is benefiting from sustaining the current situation?