RE: Lazy network operators

[Paul Jakma <paul () clubi ie>]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:

> Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side.

Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason
why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart
from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers
are asking for it.

As Paul Vixie points out, without a multihoming solution beyond that
offered by 4, v6 networks will look just v4 - most of it will be on
non-global address space and NAT. Not really interesting..

[snip darth vader]

I know, what's worse is that I know it need not be so. (how's your
MHAP doing?  How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal?)
 
regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma      paul () clubi ie        paul () jakma org       Key ID: 64A2FF6A
        warning: do not ever send email to spam () dishone st
Fortune:
One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.