Brian, > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think we'd be better off to simply forget > about address scope.
At last, the real question. Well, this could be both the best thing we could do for IPv6 and the worst thing we could do for IPv6. It would be the best thing we could do for IPv6 because for numerous reasons it would simplify it and could allow for a faster deployment. It would be the worst thing we could do for IPv6 because that would be a tacit admission that we have failed to deliver on the promises for IPv6, and are settling for IPv6 being IPv4 with more bits. This could mean the death of IPv6 as enhancements in NATs are way cheaper than building a native v6 internet, and as long as the v4 internet is not on the verge of collapse (which is going to take some years at best) IPv6 would not take off. There are three things that could make IPv6 take off: 1) A killer app, which we still have to see. 2) The v4 address space _really_ getting full, which will eventually happen but we simply don't know when (as the time frame keeps being pushed) and certainly not tomorrow morning. 3) IPv6 being a lot more powerful than IPv4. > Well, here's my attempt at becoming flame bait :-) This was a sound question to ask. However, what you propose is giving up on item 3) above, and since there is nothing we can to rush the invention of a hypothetical killer app it actually jeopardizes the deployment of IPv6. When time for 2) is around the corner, IPv6 will be deployed no matter what, quick and dirty. Instead of settling for what we can deliver today, why don't we use the remaining time to try to make it better? Might not produce anything else, but at least we would have tried until the last minute. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
