> waxing nostalgic... IPv6 was supposed to be an enabler > of a whole > raft of interesting new capabilities. based on your > concerns, listed > above, IPv6 is going to be nothing more than IPv4 with > larger address > space. if that is what we end up with, then IPv6 > development might > be considered a waste of time. we could support the > premise of IPv6 > (10x16th nodes...?) using Paul Francis's nifty idea of > a box that will > do address translation and never need to move away from > a 32bit address > space. > > IPv6 had (and perhaps still has) the ability to allow > us to develop > alternative routing techniques, where aggregation is > not the only > abstraction that is viable. > > For me the vote (and it is a vote...) seems to break > down along these > lines: > > Yes - those who wish to maintain the status quo or have > vested commercial > interests in shipping IPv6 product. > No - those who wish to explore the latent capabilities of IPv6. > > as usual, YMMV and my understanding is likely flawed. > > I share this comment... I'd like IPv6 to become more than IPv4 with longer addresses and without NAT.
Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
