I share pretty much the views expressed on the page. Small addition to that would be the fact that current "transition" proposals are killing the possibility of transition as such. IPv6 is strongly dependent on IPv4 through various "ipv4 compatible" addresses, which are essentially private IPv6 addresses, i.e. not globally routable. BTW, not the only private v6 addresses in this sense. This basically means that it will be nearly impossible or at least extremely hard to wash out IPv4 from the implementation. Personally I think that removing IPv4 can not be justified. Instead of introducing two networks internetworked in a proper way, there are two networks tightly coupled to each other. Besides all, such approach nearly exclude the design of yet another network, which can be naturally internetworked with existing networks. Are there many believers that IPv6 is the last one and forever? The power of layering was heavily underestimated if not ignored. Isn't it clear enough that we would be nowhere if bridging of link layers would take over internetworking of networks. Is this imaginable situation? The ambitions driving the new network design certainly deserve respect because it is natural to improve things but hardly the way it is being done.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: den 14 januari 2004 18:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dubious assumptions about IPv6 (was death of the Internet) Since the topic of IPv6 transition seems to have surfaced in this discussion, I thought I'd send a pointer to my argument as to why a lot of the common assumptions about IPv6 transitions are dubious. I put these things in a web page to avoid needing to re-type the same arguments over and over, and because I think I express things more effectively in this form than when trying to finish an email message on a difficult topic before going to X (where X is one of {work,lunch,dinner,bed}). One downside is that the web page isn't directly tailored to a specific list discussion - so some of the assumptions listed on the web page are apropos to the recent discussion on this list while others are not. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html Responses should go to my private email address if you want me to see them - I've disabled my subscription to the ietf list and am currently only scanning the archives once every few days. (In general, it's a bad idea to assume that you know whether someone will receive a reply sent to the entire list.)
