> From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> .. I don't see a significant market for IPv6 if it doesn't support
> applications that cannot be run on NATted IPv4. Yes, there may still be
> some small advantage of IPv6 for some groups of users if this doesn't
> happen, but not for the Internet community as a whole.
> ...
> In order to create a significant advantage, there need to be so few
> NATs in IPv6 that application developers can write applications that
> will fail in the presence of NATs ..
> I agree that there's a requirement for PI addresses
The irony here is pretty striking.
IPv6 (you reckon) won't succeed in taking off unless it can get rid of NAT's,
but people have NAT's (in part) because they want identifiers for their
machines that are independent of their location in the connectivity topology.
Clearly, you can't have a single label which is both location-independent (so
it's provider independent) and location-dependent (so that the routing
works). Which is why people use NAT's to do this... but you claim IPv6 will
fail to take off if it can't get rid of NAT's.
The irony is that in the architectural discussion phase (such as it was) of
IPng, it was proposed that these two functions (location and identification)
be split, but this concept was fiercely resisted by the IPv6 designers; it
will be extremely piquant if this decision results in continued desire for
NAT's, and therefore (if you're right) the failure of IPv6 to take off...
Noel