[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Colin Alston]

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 
market yet).

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>