This is more in the way of a leading question for those who are attending NANOG 40. I'll ask it the same way I did at NZNOG back in February -- what problem is it that IPv6 is actually supposed to solve? I used to know the answer to this, but I don't now. In 1997 (or even years before, reading Scott Bradner's eloquent advocacy for it back then) it would have been: address space, security, extensions, QOS. But it seems to me these have either been sidestepped, addressed somewhat, or the benefits have not overcome the costs in a clear business case sense. As I said -- my purpose in posing this is to stimulate discussion at Bellevue. It was the most interesting thing talked about at Palmerston North, at least until the cold beer arrived. fh