Re: Lazy network operators

[Paul Jakma <paul () clubi ie>]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> it's still quite astounding to me that when we finish deploying
> ipv6 we'll still have provider assigned addresses that customers
> are afraid to use beyond the edge of their campus, and we'll still
> have the age-old tension between "i could get global routing for
> that address block" and "i could qualify with my RIR to obtain that
> address block (and afford the fees)".
>
> anyway, there will absolutely be NAT in ipv6 enterprise networks, but the
> reason for it won't be a shortage of globally unique address space.

Hmmm, or rather, there just wont be any demand for IPv6 deployment,
at least from the edges (consumers, small/medium networks). Why
bother changing if, despite the (almost indefinitely) availability of
sparse address space, one can not claim a tiny piece as ones' own?
Which is IPv4's only problem, at least as seen from the edges.

Provider independence (to some degree, even by DNS A6 or otherwise)  
for all should have been IPv6's biggest selling point. It doesnt have
it, judging by multi6 it's not likely it ever will, and hence it's
similarly unlikely there ever will be any real demand for v6.

(i write this hoping it won't be so, but i'm not very optimistic
about it).

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma      paul () clubi ie        paul () jakma org       Key ID: 64A2FF6A
        warning: do not ever send email to spam () dishone st
Fortune:
consultant, n.:
        Someone who knowns 101 ways to make love, but can't get a date.