Neil I think Andy sums this up well.
Also there has been some confusion about the taskforce. The taskforce didn't set up to tell ISPs what to do - in fact BT was prominently a founder back in 2001 but went cool when 21C Network became the foo of choice. My perspective was and remains as a developer and user of networks. I prefer to have networks that I can directly address devices over rather than being mediated. That is my main problem with the UK model for consumer broadband. It has ignored this basic characteristic. A somewhat broader point than IPv6 or IPv4 through address translators. I was sorry to see 6UK close but I completely understand the frustrations that led to it. Incidentally the taskforce never became a formal entity so there was nothing really to close down - but to answer Martin's complaint - the website had been moved from BT to U o Southampton when BT became less keen. But we downed tools to keep the space clear for 6UK when that was started. The TF participants were partly instrumental in pushing HMG to get that started. On that note I hope ISPs and operators as well as vendors will support the announcement of the new Council in Belfast so UK developers and users can start very shortly to assume everything will be addressable directly over v6 ASAP! best Christian Andy Davidson wrote: > On 4 Sep 2014, at 23:03, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > >> sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish! >> >> NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6. > > That’s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about > the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a > broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. > >> - it may not be desirable but even those that rolled out IPV6 years ago will >> need it. the only way NAT44 would have been avoidable would have been for >> everyone on the planet to press the IPV6 button at the same time! the only >> odds longer than that happening anytime soon is Roy Hodgson being England >> manager in a years time! > > Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; giving > users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep > the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the home doesn’t give > them an incentive to move. Doing this early and getting content onto v6 > early reduces your spend on CGN tin because there’s less content that you can > only reach on the v4 only internet. > >> to cover another point, only the crazy of crazies would think that anyone >> had a vested interest to slow down V6 deployment, only folks I can see are >> the existing RIRs and the brokers trying make some money out this situation > > CGN tin vendors. :-) > >> (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know >> VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a >> phone - it's the killer app bell. ;) > > Congrats, hope to hear more about it next week in Belfast. > > Andy -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, MCMA ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 [email protected] -------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
