[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Paul Vixie]

> Bottom line is: there is currently no substitute for IPv6 PI.

right.  very sad, but very true.

> The real world would probably go for IPv6 NAT instead, but the IETF is
> deadlocked; instead of choosing between the lesser and two evils and
> sacrifice one of the "features", they want to have the cake and eat it too.

ietf said don't do nat in v4.  the market said screw you.  the market won, and
ietf ended up having to add nat support into various protocols, and started
having nat oriented working groups, and so on.  i expect the same with nat v6.
don't let ietf scare you -- they're really just you, or will be once they're
up s**t creek without your paddle.  (again.)

> As of today, we have don't have jack.

as of today, we have ip with bigger addresses, and so we have the ability to
explode the global routing table at faster than light speeds.  with ipv4 we
had to make due with sublight speeds.  wheee, warp drive.  yay.

> The jury is still out on the "inevitable" part though. And we won't know
> for sure until 2 years after IPv4 becomes unavailable. 

i have more confidence in the ability of router vendors to bend moore's law
and in backbone architects and routing protocol architects to bend graph
theory, than i have for example in diesel-from-algae as a way to solve the
world's carbon problem.  so i'm not nec'ily hopeful, but i'm more hopeless
about other things than i am about a 2M-route DFZ.