[136174] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 1 16:52:18 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102011506170.54349@murf.icantclick.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:34:34 -0800
To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:08 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>=20
>> What's the point of switching to IPv6 if it repeats all the IPv4 =
mistakes only with bigger addresses?
>>=20
>> If you like NAT IPv4 is the place to be, it'll only get more and =
more.
>=20
> It's argument like this that has lead to this moment. Instead of =
discussing "how can the next generation addressing scheme support the =
needs of Internet consumers today and tomorrow" we tell people "if you =
don't like it, use v4"
>=20
>=20
> Guess what? We're still using v4.
>=20
> ..david
Enjoy that. Let's see how that goes in 5-7 years.
If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT =
forward with you, then, I'm fine with you remaining in your IPv4 island. =
I'm willing to bet that most organizations will embrace an internet =
unencumbered by the brokenness that is NAT and move forward. I do not =
think that lack of NAT has been a significant barrier to IPv6 adoption, =
nor do I think it will be.
Owen
