Well, my point was that operators might want to influence the network admins to go for no-NAT as they want to sell peer-to-peer services and that is one of the few drivers for operators to go to IPv6.=> Why is it gone ? Not everyone wants NATs and for those who do, deprecating SL addresses will not help. It will just make their (Network admins) behaviour less predictable.Maybe, but from a operator point of view, the advantage of being early on IPv6 is to enable your users to do peer-to-peer services. There are no new services I can launch just because I give out IPv6 address, on the contrary. There is most likely a higher cost involved.=> I don't disagree with that, but I don't see the relevance to my statement.
I am not saying you can take all the protocols of IPv6 and transfer them to IPv4. I am saying you can achieve the same level of functionality in v4.=> Yes there is. The address size itself allows to do things that you can't do with v4. Check out the SEND WG for example or MIPv6, or address autoconf....This are all services / functions I could do in IPv4 as well. Perhaps not with the IPv4 address header though.=> I'll be very interested in seeing a proposal on secure ARP, MIPv4 RO or the final Zeroconf solution for IPv4 autoconf....
No, but when I come up with the peer-to-peer service pidgins-over-IP, I will not be able to sell it to a (most likely) large part of the Internet connected enterprises as they are behind IPv6 NATs. They started out with networks that where not connected to the public Internet, got the site-locals, there friendly consulting company sold them a firewall, convinced them they where much safer if they stayed with the site-locals and bought the software-add-on license for IPv6-NAT.....If you choose to use SL with globally routable addresses in the same network, you can get P2P.If I have globally routeable addresses in the first place to identify my network devices, why would I want SL?=> If you don't want it, don't use it. No one is suggesting that every site must use them.
Does the story sound familiar? That enterprise is now waiting for the release of the pidgins-over-IP (or SIP or any other new protocol) proxy update for their firewall.....
No. Network admins will buy what the latest marketing story in Packet Magazine or some IDG paper says. I am sorry - that is the way it works. Not for all, but for many. How many network admins do you think is following this discussion and understand the different concepts?If you give peoplea tool - they will use it, and eventually someone will hurt themselves with it.=> I don't think so. People will do what they want with whatever addresses they invent. Network admins are not kids. They are convinced that (in some cases) they need certain features. They will get there one
Here I agree. But that does not mean that we should not learn of the past. IPv6 has many flaws - mainly in that it does not address some of the more urgent problems on todays Internet besides address shortage. We have a window of opportunity to fix a lot of other things that where bad about IPv4. Let's be open minded and try and do that. Let's not blindly try and copy IPv4 with us.way or another. You might disagree with their reasons or arguments, but there is no decision we take here that will change their minds immediately.
I am more worried that people are starting to give up on the discussion because it's locked....I have still to see an argument as to what there is with SLs that I can't do with globaladdresses?=> Well, if after reading all the mails you still think so, don't expect one from me :)
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
