On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:30:12 -0500 (EST), Noel Chiappa wrote:
The incredibly rich irony, for those with long memories, is that *
IPv6 only exists because of a previous round of FUD about IPv4
address exhaustion* - one spread by the proponents of yet another
protocol that was going to "replace" IPv4 - i.e. CLNP.
Noel, this assertion is just plain wrong.
The IPv6 effort began because, 10 years ago, we ALREADY had legitimate
requests for address blocks being refused. Had those requests been
honored, we would have run out of addresses almost instantly.
And therein lies the key, strategic error we made. We looked for when
we would no longer be able to satisfy ANY requests -- and the estimate
I remember was 2020 -- rather than when we had to start refusing
legitimate ones.
So, the market found a way to route around our non-responsiveness.
Now we need to learn to live with it.
(We would probably have had to learn to live with NATs in any case,
since there is a different line of analysis that says that NATs serve
more purposes than countering address space scarcity and that they
were essentially inevitable because of the leaf-network conveniences
they provide.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
www.brandenburg.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf