Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

[Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>]

> > End-to-end-ness is and has been "busted" in the corporate world AFAICT
> > for a number of years. IPv6 "people" seem to think that simply  
> > providing
> > globally unique addressing to all endpoints will remove NAT and all
> > associated trouble. Guess what - it probably won't.
>
> If you don't want end-to-end, be a man (or woman) and use a proxy.  

Been doing that for a long time for v4, only a few protocols have
been a problem where they've deliberately ignored this requirement
to force the only end-to-end shall exist dogma. They die off or
get worked around

Real world is both exist and have their uses

> Don't tell the applications they they are connected to the rest of  
> the world and then pull the rug from under them. This works in IPv4  
> today but don't expect this to carry over to IPv6.

And people wonder why v6 is going nowhere. Whilst I'm happy with proxy
rather than fudging bits others want to fudge.

> At least not without a long, bloody fight.

I don't think they'll fight they'll say stuff v6 as it doesn't work.

If v6 is to take over people will have to be a bit more flexible

brandon