On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:34, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
> 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 the latter, can you explain succinctly to the rest of us how > you expect it to work? You snipped the comment I was replying too, and thus the context of my statement. What I was replying to was a statement that we should just give everyone a CPE that could handle the same space inside and outside. My response was that if we are to replace CPE it should be with IPv6 capable CPE, _not_ CGN tolerant CPE. What I did not say was anything about prolonging the life of IPv4. In fact I have argued against that several times, a few in this very thread. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. Cheers, ~Chris > best, > john > > > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
