"Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
Look, my days as an engineer are a distant memory, so I won't try to work
this out in detail. Maybe there are irrefutable reasons why this can't be
done, but I do believe the current architecture will lead to premature
exhaustion of the address space.
It will take far longer to design and deploy something that is so
technically elegant it solves all problems and pleases everyone. At
some point you simply have to move forward. To do nothing can be far
more dangerous (as proven by the disdain for NAT). Can IPv6 be worse
for the net than NAT? If premature depletion of IPv6 addresses is the
biggest problem IPv6 ends up encountering I'd say the net is in good
shape. It's probably more likely that new problems no one had
considered will arise. I see rough consensus, move forward.
John