Re: IPv6 news

["Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>]

We do not think, that _it wil be IPv6_. IPv6 is a good example of _second_
system, and do not looks as _succesfull_ for now.
And it is not definitely _LAST PROTOCOL_.

It _can be_ IPv6, true. But it can be other protocol (or just workaround for
IPv4, as we had CIDR and CLASSLESS) instead.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregory Edigarov" <greg () velcom com>
To: <nanog () nanog org>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 news


> Just my 5 cents to the  topic:
>
> Don't you all think that IPv6 would not be so neccessary for the very
> long time yet, if the IPv4 allocation scheme would be done right from
> the very very beginning?
> If the allocation policies would be something like the ones for ASn's.
> I.e. when you ask for IP space allocation you must be in the need to set
> your own routing policies.
> In any other cases you should use private network space with only one IP
> shown outside the network. Yes, this would be a headache for some
> appplications like IP telephony,
> but, I don't see any problems in making the _correct_  protocols so they
> could work through NAT.
>
> As what I see now is that a very large address blocks are allocated  to
> large companies,  what companies do with them? Correct, they ae
> installing them as IP's of workstations, when, if IPs
> would be treated as a very valuable resource from the beggining, they
> would have to use  at max /24 (well, may be 2 or three /24) for access
> routers.
>
> When they are proposing  /48 allocation scheme for  IPv6 they  must be
> out of their mind, because in case such allocation will be ineffect,
> IPv6 address space will end shortly too.
>
> Again, IPv6 is creating more problems then solve. Better solution would
> be to freeze IPv4 allocation, then force big IPv4 users to return the
> addresses to the "public pool",  and start
> allocation from the white piece of paper, doing the things right.
>
>
> -- 
> With best regards,
> GRED-RIPE