[ppml] alternative realities

[Michel Py]

>> Someone explains me again why I should spend money to upgrade to
IPv6?

> Paul Vixie wrote:
> the connectivity community of which you are a part needs IPv6, though.

Nope. Voice does not need IPv6, and the only hosts I care to connect
directly:
a) are in the US with 4 IPv4 addresses per capita which is enough for
the rest of my life and
b) use apps that work behind double nat anyway.


> and you don't need SIP to work

SIP is a protocol that was designed to demonstrate that NAT was breaking
things. Point well taken: it is broken. I use Skype. It's survival of
the fittest, aka evolution.

Paul, your arguments are 10 years old. Something else than this broken
record, please. The launch window for IPv6 was 5 years ago.



> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Your 3g cellphone provider will have 50-100 million ip speaking
> devices on your network to manage at some point in the near future

That's an oldie too. Besides, it's not my problem. IP packet transport
is a commodity, and cell phone providers will provide what I want: IPv4.

I am not upgrading while there still is bickering about PI, ULAs,
policies, etc. Furthermore, I would definitely not upgrade if the large
operator folk had it their way with the 4K DMZ and no PI whatsoever.

Michel.