Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)

[Avleen Vig <lists-nanog () silverwraith com>]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:06:37AM +0100, Stefan Mink wrote:
> > > Does anybody honestly think companies will commit the capex needed to
> > > implement IPv6?
> > Not without additional benefits. We need either applications that are
> > working a lot better at ipv6 or we may yet have to see ipv4 space ran out
> > before it becomes clear to everybody that ipv6 is a must.
>
> imagine a network without NAT. I stopped counting applications
> that are struggling/breaking with NAT...
> But many people still believe rfc1918 and NAT are a cool thing
> because they just got used to it...

They're a cool thing for other reasons.
If "more IP addresses" is the only motivation for using IPv6, it's
really not enough. For environments where direct access to the internet
isn't required, NAT serves perfectly well.
There's also no *need* to use public IP's on a private internal-only
network either, so it makes little sense to do so.

The way I see it, there are a lot of reasons not to use IPv6..