In what version of IP do you think you "tunnelize" IPv4?
Can you compare 2^32 addresses with 2^128 addresses?
Why force security in IPv4 with IPsec while security is a natural feature of
IPv6?
Why force QoS in IPv4 while QoS is a natural feature of IPv6?
What about the (huge) size of the routing tables in IPv4?
What about the change of size of the IP header?
What about the complexity of the IPv4 header compared to the simplicity of the
IPv6 header?
What about the options field?
What about broadcasts compared to anycasts and multicasts?
What about...
Etc.
Don't take it as an offense, but... do you really know what IPv6 is all about?
And finally : do you really think that the IETF people (et al.) built IPv6
without a preliminary good consideration?
-----Original Message-----
From: su bo [mailto:subo1973(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com]
Everyone :
I'd like to know why IPv6 is a must .
We can use IPv4 tunnel to extend the address
spaces. We can use IPsec with IPv4. We can use MPLS on
the trunk of Internet to provide Qos. What the need of
IPv6 .
IPv6 is not compact with IPv4 . If pure IPv6 is
used , all the node of IPv4 is disconnected of
Internet. If IPv6 and IPv4 is used at same time .
confuse is world wide .
I think use IPv4 tunnul (IP_in_IP) can make an IP
address space of 2^64, and IP_in_IP_in_IP can make an
IP address space of 2^96......
In this way we can extend IP address space to any
size that most fit the Internet's need . Lots of
Internet user connect to Internet by proxy. IP_in_IP
is no more than proxy. all the user knows the importy
node of the road , so the address is naturally
aggregatable.
every node on the Internet can has it own old IPv4
address . nothing changed !
all the node of now a days Internet would be a
proxy , a router or itself just as it likes.
all the application is not need to changed
signiphently , just configurate to support proxy. it
seem nearly all the application support proxy.
Certainly a little extend of the proxy is needed.
All that is spuuorted by IPv4_in_IPv4 .
Do we really need IPv6?