but this proposal is not about migrating to ipv6. it is about ipv4 life
extension and nat4444444 4ever. to hell with that.
<ipv6 deployment enthusiast>
If NAT4444444 gets deployed, then IPv4 will become progressively less
reliable over time. As more people work on IPv6, IPv6 will become more
reliable over time. Eventually, IPv6 will become more reliable than IPv4.
At that point, I can tell my family that they should move to IPv6 - not
because they've run out of addresses - but because they're fed up with an
unreliable Internet connection.
From a service provider perspective, adding NAT444444 to the network comes
at the cost of lighting up the call center. Eventually, the cost of the
call center will become more expensive than deployment of IPv6...
</ipv6 deployment enthusiast>
<cgn developer>
This allows me to work with really complicated code that I can become an
expert on that will have a constant stream of new work and will provide
revenue for my company for years to come.
</cgn developer>
See - all you need is a change in perspective...
- Wes
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf