At 21:31 21/11/2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
My feeling is that there has to be a group effort to change this, and it
needs across-the-board cooperation. VCs need to be shown that
bidirectional reachability is in their ultimate interest, in that it opens
the door for new technologies and products. Small carriers need to be
convinced that providing lots of addresses to each user won't bankrupt
them or make them non-competitive (probably the place where government has
the most to contribute in this whole thing is underwriting loans against
IPv6 equipment in SOHO ISPs). Edge gear that provides NAT technology also
needs to support v6 technolgy, and so does edge gear that doesn't. It
needs to be a lot easier to get private routable space so that small orgs
aren't implicitly forced to use NATs. Etcetera.
Full agreement with this. You can equate it for the average internet user
to "there is a new internet, this is what it provides the old internet did
not provide, make sure that your next purchases are compatible with the new
internet".
The new features list must be appealing and true.
"IPv6 = IPv4 with larger addresses" does not make a new Internet. So either
the IETF drops the issue, either the IETF defines a new internet, or the
IETF does as Harald said: it bundles a precise desription of what IPv6 does
and does not do and transfers the IPv6 product to people who will use it to
build a new internet for the users. But the more the IETF keeps talking of
IPv6, the more it delays its possible acceptance by the public. The last 10
years since the IETF started discussing IPv6 14 years ago show it may
continue for ever otherwise.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf