John C Klensin wrote:
Arturo Servin wrote:
Chris Grundemann wrote:
Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If
not, who do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
...
if they were, we could just sign
everyone up for IPv6 capable CPE and skip the whole debate...
;)
So, Chris, if you expect this allocation will avoid the costs of
signing everyone up for IPv6-capable CPE, what is your
transition plan? Or are you advocating an IPv4-forever model?
If CPE is meant to refer to the border router, then this appears like
a very short-sighted look at the real issue.
There are huge amounts of equipment in use that simply does not support IPv6,
other than border routers, like home multimedia and entertainment stuff
(Nintendo WII, Nintendo DS, Internet-enabled set-top-boxes & TV & Radio,
webcams, home NAS, etc.), which do not support IPv6,
so I don't see how IPv6 could be seen as a solution at all (it isn't).
So everyone who is suggesting IPv6 here, is actually
suggesting NAT 4664 over NAT 444.
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf