On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
IMHO Right now, we need services with native IPv6 based interfaces, with
equivalent performance and equivalent features and equivalent price that we
have today with IPv4. Anything that detracts from the roll out of native IPv6
based service interfaces at this time is a bad move IMVHO and hastens the day
that the Internet fragments into a bunch of CGN zones, that is dominated by
businesses that can afford to buy public IPv4 addresses for their servers or
services, or whose business model relies on NAT traversal being difficult. I
personally don't want that sort of Internet.
Right now, applications developers need to be able to write and ship code that
uses IPv6 and can talk to other application instances using IPv6. Anything
that detracts from the ability of applications to use IPv6 at this time is a
bad move IMHO and decreases the chance that there will ever be sufficient use
of IPv6 (of any kind) to justify widespread deployment of native IPv6.
Given that development and engineering support time is finite, I'd much
rather that 6to4 was declared historic so that developers and engineers could
spend more time on deployment of native IPv6 service interfaces.
I have a better suggestion: let's declare NAT historic. That would free up
lots of developers and engineers to spend time on both native v6 and better v6
transition mechanisms. Not only would they not need to engineer new NATs,
applications developers wouldn't need to engineer new workarounds for new NATs.
Everybody would win.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf