Subject: nostalgic ( was RE: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing)

From: "BAUDOT Alain FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:51:11 +0200

> 	waxing nostalgic...  IPv6 was supposed to be an enabler 
> of a whole
> 	raft of interesting new capabilities.  based on your 
> concerns, listed
> 	above, IPv6 is going to be nothing more than IPv4 with 
> larger address 
> 	space.  if that is what we end up with, then IPv6 
> development might
> 	be considered a waste of time.  we could support the 
> premise of IPv6
> 	(10x16th nodes...?) using Paul Francis's  nifty idea of 
> a box that will
> 	do address translation and never need to move away from 
> a 32bit address
> 	space.
> 
> 	IPv6 had (and perhaps still has) the ability to allow 
> us to develop
> 	alternative routing techniques, where aggregation is 
> not the only 
> 	abstraction that is viable. 
> 
> 	For me the vote (and it is a vote...) seems to break 
> down along these
> 	lines:
> 
> Yes - those who wish to maintain the status quo or have 
> vested commercial
> 	interests in shipping IPv6 product.
> No  - those who wish to explore the latent capabilities of IPv6.
> 
> 	as usual, YMMV and my understanding is likely flawed.
> 
> 
I share this comment... I'd like IPv6 to become more than IPv4 with
longer addresses and without NAT. 

Alain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------