[ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down)
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue Apr 3 23:16:30 EDT 2007
You appear to be approaching this from the most complicated perspective of
'only one version at a time'... Your focus on 'switching' raises all of the
problems without any obvious value return. If you take the approach of
'adding IPv6' alongside IPv4, you gain the ability for applications and
users that can use IPv6 to do so without cutting off IPv4 or creating a
translation-nightmare. The easiest way to get the end users to switch is to
make it transparent to them. Vista and Mac OS support will do the right
thing if you provide the infrastructure, and the content hosting
organizations do the same. Trying to force an unnatural and visible 'switch'
will only raise costs for everyone.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Sean Reifschneider
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:36 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down)
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:15:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >On the other hand, if the connection initiator is IPv6 and the Internet
> >is IPv4 that kind of NAT code should be trivially easy to write.
> Which is why I think we need a Comcast or other largely client oriented
> provider to switch.
> Like its politicians and its wars, society has the teenagers it
> -- J. B. Priestley
> Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff <jafo at tummy.com>
> tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995: Ask me about High
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
More information about the ARIN-PPML