RE: When IPv6 ... if ever?

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () MHSC com>]

> 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?