Perhaps we should hold ourselves to our own standards for standards,
which include "no known technical omissions" for Proposed standards and
above. These are two serious technical omissions with IPv6. They are
not solved, even though IPv6 is now at Draft.
What we should do in the long term is remedy these problems in the IPv6
In the near term, we should recommend more liberal address assignment
policies so that multiple prefixes and renumbering are not needed until
such time as we have demonstrated technology that allows a wide
diversity of applications and networks can handle them seamlessly.
Yes, we're working on such technologies, but the bottom line is we
don't even know how we're going to solve those problems yet, much less
ready to ship running code.
The market is often shortsighted, but in this case it's right. People
aren't adopting IPv6 in large numbers in part because there are still
some kinks that need to be worked out.
1. Significant numbers of enterprise network operators do not want
multiple addresses per host. It makes everything more complex: access
control, troubleshooting, internal firewalling, documentation, etc. And
during the transition, it also creates a network with two different
2. Renumbering. There are enough people that have renumbered on a flag
day that will tell why they won't do it again, and renumbering without
flag day is a huge amount of work, which is why organizations that had
to renumber moved behind NAT, with a sentence that I heard many times:
"I don't want to go through this <bleep> again".
Ietf mailing list