TJ wrote:
Let us spin this another way. If you cannot even expect mild change such
as 240/4 to become prevalent enough to be useful, on what do you base your
optimism that the much larger changes IPv6 requires will?
Joe
Easy - Greater return on the investment; i.e. - instead of getting an IPv4
/4 out of the effort you get an IPv6 Global Unicast Space of 2000::/3 (just
for starters, counting neither the rest of the unicast nor multicast, etc.
spaces.).
::/3
/48
/64
Do you think we may ever come to regret baking that in? And use that
regret to torpedo any attempts at change?
As far as roi is concerned, we can make all the calculation we want.
What we cannot do is force everyone else to come up with the same
numbers we did.
Also, the impact of the "changes required" is close to the same in that
every node needs to be touched - that is the hard part, getting updates
deployed. *(Unless you want 240/4 to be a special/limited use case - in
which case the effort is smaller, but so is the reward ...)*
/TJ
The scope of the change is far far different, no matter the use case.
Never more than a simple update.
Joe
