At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote:
both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at
least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly,
large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT
again.
True. Obviously the techology is of the essence. What I mean is that IPv6
will only take off the day the reason why IPv6 was designed is permitted to
be used (to be an IPv4 with larger addresses). This means that users will
be permitted to freely innovate in the way they use the Internet in _not_
carring about the type of address they use. And that we do not block this
innovative usage in not permitting what this innovation may need, and in
not stabilizing the standards. Today I think these needs include legal
protection, regalian services, permanent addressing, independence from ISP,
plug-and-play, ...
Obviously as you say. The "internat is the future", with NATs adding
functions over functions. But we will then talk more of "corebox" than
NATs. They started as NATs, but once they are under IPv6 - and not a NAT
anymore - they will continue to be here, and to provide an increasing pile
of services (starting with OPES, and their network overlay and all the
possible new architectural non-end-to-end systems .. and all the debates
this will rise). So, let talk of "interbox".
Exciting future.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf