----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
let's see. everyone acknowledges that NATs are easier to deploy than
IPv6,
Deployment of IPv6 (as defined by purists) may take a long time or never
happen.
The usage of IPv6 technology to deploy more rational solutions is happening
now.
This is similar to the way Unix deployment was slowed in the late 70s by
people
("selling to the market") solutions such as DOS. There does not appear to be
much
of a market for people interested in 128-bit native IPv6 connections. There
is a
large market for people willing to divide those 128 bits into a 64-bit field
for the
existing IPv4 Internet and a 64-bit field for their new persistent
addresses. ISPs
do not want to face renumbering. ISPs also do not want to be held hostage by
the
ICANN/IETF/ARIN/RIPE/APNIC tax collectors. After all, why use a Free
Operating System like Linux or FreeBSD and then pay $25,000 every year to
rent IPv6 addresses ? IPv8 Address Space is free for the taking, to the
pioneers
that want it. This is similar to land homesteaded by early pioneers in the
U.S.
Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt