[ppml] alternative realities

[Paul Vixie]

> > 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.

so, you (michel py) do not personally need IPv6 at this time.  i agree.

> > 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.

so, you (michel py) do not personally need IPv6 at this time.  i agree.

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

you (michel py) are not alone on the internet.  and in true microsoft style,
the overwhelming majority of the devices that will be connected to the 
internet have not been built yet.  stop thinking steady state.  there's a
LOT of growth occurring far from your head, and even that is only the
beginning of the real internet to be built by our kids and grandkids.

> 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.

i know this.  but it's unrelated to the rest of your statements here.  note
that there is an IPv6 PI policy in place, and you might qualify for it now.