...

...

Does anybody honestly think companies will commit the capex needed to implement IPv6?

...

William Leibzon wrote: Not without additional benefits.

I agree, and they're all gone now. To my deepest regrets, IPv6 has become nothing more than IPv4 with more bits (it's actually worse than IPv4 as of today).

Excuse my rambling and what some may consider heresy even :), but.. One question to ask is whether IPv6's approach is the right one, furthering a particular way of doing things rather than really reinventing itself. Do I really need global awareness of address space? Why isn't address space a tool, services is what you're really after, and why not build an infrastructure centered around context of a service rather than reachability of an address? If we're going thru all this trouble in providing support for it, why not make it a more revolutionary approach? Is it really realistic to have some of the features in IPv6 employed in the way they are designed? The debate around NAT in IPv6 circles clearly show that there's an (more or less) academic desire to expose every address on the planet to every other. Is that truly required by way of the way IPv4/v6 work today? There are very convincing arguments to be made to say that this isn't desirable and that I don't particularly want everybody to get to every address (and once you accept that unrestricted, 100% reachability of every globally assigned address is unrealistic, many of the arguments behind the need for vast address space go away..). I really don't necessarily care what somebody's address is, if or if not it gets translated, as long as reachability exists.. So, as long as I can make the service work, what does it matter? Per hop architectures do seem to work nicely. The addressing allocation debate and that we to this date do not have a fully functional and working 'multihoming address space to multiple providers' approach that matches reality is another problem to be solved. And notions that try to explain the need for multihoming away rather than admitting that strictly hierarchical address space may be a dead end path and that a new solution is needed, are disturbing to me. Both of the last points are real issues, IMHO, not just rambling. And, no, I don't have a solution to instantiate right now and here, but I do have some ideas as to what I would or would not like to see included in a solution. I'm not saying IPv6 is dead, but I think a leap, rather than an incremental improvement may be needed. Unless somebody actually does come up with an IPv6 killer app... My $.02, Christian ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.61"