[ppml] IPv6 flawed?
colin at thusa.co.za
Sun Sep 2 17:55:59 EDT 2007
On 02/09/2007 06:08 Michel Py wrote:
> - As it turned out down the road, the multiple-addresses-per-host are
> too much of an administrative overhead.
> So we're in a situation where the only remaining real reason to upgrade
> to IPv6 is IPv4 address space exhaustion, while IPv6 still does not have
> hugely popular features such as NAT and no equivalent either.
> Technically, I consider NAT more flawed than IPv6. Nevertheless, NAT has
> addressed market needs, while IPv6 is a solution without a market.
While I agree with a number of areas lacking in IPv6 implementation
(DHCPv6 for example which is a bit broken on every implementation I've
touched), I don't quite grok how that is a flaw in the protocol itself
or how it influences adoption (aside from the argument that it has no
Mostly though, I don't understand the idea that peoples hardware
hardware capabilities (router memory) and software implementations
(NAT etc) are a fixed constraint that policy should work around.
Colin Alston <colin at thusa.co.za>
More information about the ARIN-PPML