I think a transition is possible but only if people stop sitting arround
waiting for it to happen.
The key in my view is to work on the NAT vendors, instead of viewing NAT
boxes as an obstacle they should be seen for what they really are, an
essential and important part of the internet infrastructure.
Simply repeating the end to end dogma is not going to provide a solution.
The internet people are using is not end to end. NAT boxes and firewalls
play an important and necessary security role.
We need a standard for a superNAT box that provides both security and
protocol bridging functions.
There is no reason this transition cannot be made seamless from the enduser
pint of view.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald van der Pol
Sent: Tue Jun 17 08:05:32 2003
To: Keith Moore
Cc: Ronald van der Pol; pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com;
aarsenau(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department
formally adopts IPv6)
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:05:23 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
I see it as a transition also. But I think there will be a long period
in which v6 is used mostly for new things, and only when v6 is more
ubiquitious than v4 will we see some of the core services migrate.
There is a big difference between planning/engineering for a transition
and planning/engineering for a coexistance. There seem to be forces
trying to steer to the latter. Seems like an important question. Why
would we want an internet with two protocols with the same functionality
running in parallel? Should that be the goal?
rvdp