In what version of IP do you think you "tunnelize" IPv4? Can you compare 2^32 addresses with 2^128 addresses? Why force security in IPv4 with IPsec while security is a natural feature of IPv6? Why force QoS in IPv4 while QoS is a natural feature of IPv6? What about the (huge) size of the routing tables in IPv4? What about the change of size of the IP header? What about the complexity of the IPv4 header compared to the simplicity of the IPv6 header? What about the options field? What about broadcasts compared to anycasts and multicasts? What about... Etc.
Don't take it as an offense, but... do you really know what IPv6 is all about? And finally : do you really think that the IETF people (et al.) built IPv6 without a preliminary good consideration? -----Original Message----- From: su bo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Everyone : I'd like to know why IPv6 is a must . We can use IPv4 tunnel to extend the address spaces. We can use IPsec with IPv4. We can use MPLS on the trunk of Internet to provide Qos. What the need of IPv6 . IPv6 is not compact with IPv4 . If pure IPv6 is used , all the node of IPv4 is disconnected of Internet. If IPv6 and IPv4 is used at same time . confuse is world wide . I think use IPv4 tunnul (IP_in_IP) can make an IP address space of 2^64, and IP_in_IP_in_IP can make an IP address space of 2^96...... In this way we can extend IP address space to any size that most fit the Internet's need . Lots of Internet user connect to Internet by proxy. IP_in_IP is no more than proxy. all the user knows the importy node of the road , so the address is naturally aggregatable. every node on the Internet can has it own old IPv4 address . nothing changed ! all the node of now a days Internet would be a proxy , a router or itself just as it likes. all the application is not need to changed signiphently , just configurate to support proxy. it seem nearly all the application support proxy. Certainly a little extend of the proxy is needed. All that is spuuorted by IPv4_in_IPv4 . Do we really need IPv6?
