On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Lee Howard <Lee(_at_)asgard(_dot_)org> wrote:
Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the best
way to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 'better'
and to sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.
IPv6 IS the mitigation of the consequences of IPv4 shortage.
The problem with IPv6 is that it is a multi-party coordination problem. I
can't deploy IPv6 unilaterally, I rely on my ISP to start supporting it.
The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old
strategy. Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the
same so that the transition cost is minimal.
It isn't clear to me that a change in strategy is required.
Well twenty years later the only changes in IPv6 deployment strategy have
been in the direction I originally proposed and almost everyone rejected as
heresy.
To remain on topic, will moving this Experimental RFC to Proposed Standard
make the transition any easier?
Some of the transition mechanisms will be with us for decades. Yes they
need to be standardized.