On 11/18/2004 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger
than all of ipv4.
Me too, but the sum total of these (both now and immediately foreseeable)
is "very few". I mean, I can site the corner cases too, but what does that
have to do with edge deployment?
so we can argue as to whether it's 5 years or 3 years or 10 years, and
we can argue about whether ipv6 is the best possible replacement for
ipv4, and we can argue about whether ipv6's warts can be fixed or
whether we'll have to live with them or throw it away and start over.
but ipv4 is in what the product managers call "end of life", and i hope
we're not arguing about that.
IPv6 is certainly inevitable in some form or another (at a minimum, its
current deployment levels are "inevitable"), but it's not inevitable
"everywhere" within a sub-decade window. It's kind of fun to think about
scenarios here (reinventing bang-path routing comes to mind) but I'm
trying to focus on what we ought to be working on to reduce deployment
friction. Granted, road-building isn't what the I* collective is good at
(or at least not since Postel stopped isssuing executive fiats) but it
would ultimately be far more productive, I think. I mean, we can try to
fix the problems that folks are having with it (especially including the
non-technical hurdles) or we can argue over whether 3% is better enough
than 2% to qualify as success, the latter of which seems to be the
preference around here.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf