On 6/9/10 5:57 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
I note in passing that this might have played out differently had we
gotten SRV record support in place for all protocols a lot sooner.
But without it for HTTP in particular you're faced with the need for
multiple port 80s in a lot of cases.
Disagree. HTTP is a bad example, since it allows canonical names to be
replaced with a name offered by clients for supporting name based
virtual hosts. In other words, a single port supports thousands of
websites. :^)
> Clearly, with skill and non-commodity equipment, a configuration
> supporting multiple IPv4 addresses at an access point can be
> implemented in conjunction with IPv6.
Of couse it can. But that's precisely the point - neither the skill
nor the non-commodity equipment are available in most cases. And
even when they are, a lot of people, like myself, run the costs
versus benefits and IPv6 ends up losing.
Agreed, but that changes once IPv6 becomes an imperative for these
services, such as websites. At that point, its easier to scale a
transitional solution when using fewer IPv4 addresses. As such, those
few wishing to retain multiple IPv4 addresses lacking IPv6 connectivity
are likely the last to adopt IPv6.
> Fortunately, it remains easy to adopt the resource conservative
> IPv4 configurations supported by commodity routers when obtaining
> IPv6 connectivity. Why should the IETF advocate an increased IPv4
> use that lacks benefit once a network has been configured?
More strawmen. We're not talking about increased IPv4 use, but
rather decent support for existing, long-deployed IPv4 use. If you
seriously think you can get people to dump their existing setups in
favor of something that is a major PITA to deal with and offers no
immediate benefit, well, I have a couple of bridges available at fire
sale prices.
I still have my English standard spanners, but they are seldom used.
The impetus to change occurs after IPv6 becomes an imperative, such as
doing business with a region dependent upon IPv6. After that,
complaints related to NATs will fade, and support for IPv4 will be seen
as the PITA. The inflection point for this may move faster than imagined.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf