% > If you want to keep running IPv4, with or without NAT,
% > feel free.
%
% That's exactly what people will do, until and unless they encounter
a
% problem with IPv4 that can only be solved by IPv6.
Your sweeping generalization does not ring true.
However with a willing suspension of disbelief, this
might be why the DoD has decided to adopt IPv6.
It wants to do things that can't be done w/ IPv4.
And the IETF should be excited that someone is actually
considering adopting an IETF work product.
It's amusing how a relatively minor DoD pronouncement can generate so
much argument on the IETF list. What the DoD announcement boils down to
is a requirement that new products bought by the DoS be IPv6 capable.
Guess what? Most of the products bought by the DoD today are already
IPv6 capable. In fact, it is probably that very observation that caused
the DoD to issue such requirement with confidence. This is not really a
watershed event, but it is also definitely a push for IPv6 deployment --
after all, the DoD is not putting a press release saying that it will
wait another 10 years before considering IPv6.
Now, I certainly share a lot of the concerns that were expressed by Noel
and others. Those who rely on governments for pushing a technology have
seldom been rewarded with success. I remember the time when we could not
get a European research funded unless it mentioned ATM...
IPv6 will be deployed if it solves at least some of the current problems
with IPv4, and if applications get written that take advantage of the
way IPv6 solves these problems. I personally believe so, and I am busy
enabling application writers doing that. We shall see...
-- Christian Huitema