Subject: Re: Why is IPv6 a must?

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:07:31 -0500

> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>

    >>> The fact that it does not solve the global routing table meltdown is,
    >>> according to such people, an obvious failure of v6 -- never mind that
    >>> they are unrelated issues.

    >> How does the fact that they are somewhat unrelated issues in any way
    >> refute the criticism of IPv6 regarding its lack of a solution to
    >> routing issues?

    > It is a silly criticism. It is like criticizing antibiotics for only
    > curing bacterial infection and not AIDS. "They're obviously useless.
    > Lets dump them."
    > If v6 is flawed in this regard, well then so is v4.

There is an important difference between v4 and v6 - we've already paid the
(by now massive) deployment costs of v4.

It would be nice if going through the immense upheaval and cost of deploying
v6 (or whatever our next big step is) actually got us a solution to one of
our most pressing real problems.

	Noel

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:43:27 -0500

> (by now massive) deployment costs of v4.

there is another important difference between v4 and v6 - we don't have 
enough addresses for everyone to use v4.

> 6 (or whatever our next big step is) actually got us a solution to one of

yes, it would.  but that has to be balanced against the cost of 
second-system effect.

Keith