On Apr 7, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: >> Unlike some others, I'm still not convinced that there is anything >> fundamentally wrong with the IPv6 design >> although I believe that we could have made it either easier to deploy or >> that we could have offered more incentives for deployment. > > IPv6 is, fundamentally, IPv4 with bigger addresses.
Not quite. IPv6 has multiple prefixes, link-local addresses, neighbor discovery. See section 3 of RFC 5739 for a discussion of how things break when you treat IPv6 as a drop-in replacement. > I am hearing two kinds of critics. On one hand, some regret the lost > opportunity to break from the IPv4 design and do something more radical, e.g. > ID/locator separation. On the other hand there are those who wish that IPv6 > was even more like IPv4, including the use of NAT and other such practices, > so network administrators could keep a familiar setting. Changing the message from "you don't need NAT anywhere" to "sure, you can use RFC 4193 ULAs, just don't let us see them on the Internet" would be a big help. Small businesses would have one or two networks, so nothing bad happens even if the router chooses the 40 random bits in a not-so-random fashion. Bigger businesses with multiple subnets in each site and VPNs between the sites would need to be more careful, but should have the appropriately-skilled operators. Just like they do now. Yoav
