RE: IPv6

["Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>]

> > At least there is general consensus among pretty much
> > everyone - with the exception of a small number of cranks -
> that IPv6 is
> > good.
>
> Now I'm officially a crank because i fail to see why IPv6 is any better
> than slightly perked up IPv4 - except for the bottom line of box vendors
> who'll get to sell more of the new boxes doing essentially the same thing.

Vadim --

        You're only a crank if you don't think a slightly perked up IPV4 is a good
thing. :)

        My justification for IPV6 being a good thing is this:

        1) Is IPV4 approaching an addressing limitation?
        2) Does IPV6 provide a significant buffer of new addresses (given current
allocation policies) the way
        IPV4 did when it was new?

If (1 & 2) => IPV6 is good
If (1 | 2) => undefined
If !(1 & 2) => who cares?

        I (personally) don't think IPV6 will change the way the internet operates
in a significant fashion
        overnight. I think the vast majority of operators will just use IPV6 like
funny IPV4 addresses. I think
        this is a good thing it says the current internet basically works.

        I think box vendors will always find something to sell, and they are always
trying to rewrap existing features/functionality into new an exciting
products -- though I think its marketing's fault, not the engineers. I am
sure you will agree, network service providers do much the same thing with
VPN/MPLS tunnel/mumble products.

My $0.02,

Deepak Jain
AiNET