>> i know. ipv6 is perfect, widely deployed, and unchangable. i hope >> we all like v4 nat. > I can find many reasons to remove the magic from the U and G bits. I > personally ran into the U/G bit issues in RFC 4380 (Teredo) and RFC > 6052 (IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses). In both cases, the design would > have been simpler if we had not try to maintain the fiction of the U > and G bits. And CGA could definitely benefit from 2 additional bits of > entropy. So this is not a change "just because."
a prospective implementor looks at ipv6 and sees a whole bunch of twisty passages of useless second system syndrome. there are more damn options than the chicago mercantile exchange. and as there is no *strong* pull from the market, all our pleas do not transform income you can sell to your management. when multiple layers of ipv4 nat is financially more attractive than our product, we have a very serious problem. we need to wipe the lipstick off the pig and start selling straightforward port chops. except i fear it is far too late. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
