On 07/31/2012 08:15 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message <[email protected]>
Michael Thomas writes:
On 07/30/2012 05:10 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
If you see some advantage that solves the IPv4 address depletion (a
big point of the transition to IPv6 exercise), then I've missed it.
If so, please point out what I missed.
No, not at all and not the point. I'm just of the mind that if
we believe that v6 is really, really ready to go there shouldn't
be any problem in substituting rfc1918 v4 space with v6 ULA
space. If that modest change leads to trouble...
Mike
It may yield no benefit except to shake out bugs at customer sites.
If so, it would increase support costs for the provider.
Grandma's Windows98 machine needs an IPv4 address and without it she
can't fetch recipes and read occasional email and run bots in the
background. :-)
To be fair, I think some of the new features being contemplated
here both require ipv6, and would be potentially beneficial without
requiring global v6 connectivity. But shaking out bugs -- and getting
people used to ipv6 -- isn't a Bad Thing, IMO. The more old hat and
normal v6 usage is, the less frightening it will be for ISP's to roll out,
right?
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
