Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 06:55 -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
>
>     > You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
>
> OK, I'll bite.
Grawl back ;)

> Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part
> of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the
> functional difference between:
>
> - A host which has an IPv6 only address, which it cannot use (without
> "borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with IPv4-only
> hosts out on the global Internet.
>
> - A host which has an IPv4 local-only address, which it cannot use (without
> "borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with other IPv4
> hosts out on the global Internet.
Difference is that the IPv6 host can actually communicate end-2-end
globally and not only in it's local network.

It is all about *global* communication, not about local communication,
you can avoid IANA completely in those cases, simply use 1.2.3.4 as an
IP at your convenience, you will have enough 32-bit space then, but you
cannot talk to your sister on vacation on japan using VoIP who you
really do not want to explain what a NAT box is and how she can get
through it with a VoIP tunnel tool or other VPN tricks.

Before you argue "but there is no IPv6 global connectivity yet", then
please check your local Abilene site, with that nice government funded
Internet2 and you will find quite a lot of activity there. Asian and
European regions are much further in deployment. Not to the doorstep of
most houses yet in Europe as they do in Korea and Japan, but with the
aid of TunnelBroker systems one can get a long way already and these are
also available on your side of the pond of course ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf