Subject: RE: Why IPv6 is a must?

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:08:26 -0400

> From: TOMSON ERIC <[email-masked]>

    > do you really think that the IETF people (et al.) built IPv6 without a
    > preliminary good consideration?

There are a lot of people in the IETF who think exactly that, actually.

(This message coming to you via the NAT box I bought in the hole-in-the-wall
computer store in the little strip mall right down the street, here in
Podunksville. Just for grins, I should have asked them if they had any
IPv6... I wonder what the ratio of NAT sales volume is to IPv6, and how
much profit people have made off the former, as opposed to the latter.
Not that I like NAT, I don't.)

	Noel

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:58:20 -0400

> I wonder what the ratio of NAT sales volume is to IPv6, and how

let's see.  everyone acknowledges that NATs are easier to deploy than IPv6, 
so comparing sales volume at this point (when NATs have been available
for several years but IPv6 is only now shipping) is fairly meaningless,
unless the very point you're trying to make is that IPv6 has taken longer
to begin deployment.

also, it seems like IPv6 deployment is more likely to take the form of 
software upgrades than hardware purchases.  and since software and hardware
production have very different cost models, dollars spent on a technology
aren't a very useful metric. once deployed, IPv6 gives more bang per buck 
than NAT.

finally if you want to compare sales between the two cases you need to
factor in the harm done to sales of applications that are made undeployable 
by NATs - which is real but difficult to measure with any confidence.

I don't think any producer of Internet hardware or software benefits in 
the long term by making the net less able to support new applications.

Keith

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:35:22 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
> let's see.  everyone acknowledges that NATs are easier to deploy than
IPv6,

Deployment of IPv6 (as defined by purists) may take a long time or never
happen.
The usage of IPv6 technology to deploy more rational solutions is happening
now.
This is similar to the way Unix deployment was slowed in the late 70s by
people
("selling to the market") solutions such as DOS. There does not appear to be
much
of a market for people interested in 128-bit native IPv6 connections. There
is a
large market for people willing to divide those 128 bits into a 64-bit field
for the
existing IPv4 Internet and a 64-bit field for their new persistent
addresses. ISPs
do not want to face renumbering. ISPs also do not want to be held hostage by
the
ICANN/IETF/ARIN/RIPE/APNIC tax collectors. After all, why use a Free
Operating System like Linux or FreeBSD and then pay $25,000 every year to
rent IPv6 addresses ? IPv8 Address Space is free for the taking, to the
pioneers
that want it. This is similar to land homesteaded by early pioneers in the
U.S.

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt