[arin-ppml] IPv6 Heretic thoughts

[Dan White]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I don't grasp your point. Are you saying that it's a management problem
>> of maintaining two addresses? Arguably, there is no end-user maintenance
>> of IPv6 addresses (in a dual stack scenario).
>>
> No... He's saying that the inability for an IPv6 only host to talk to 
> hosts
> which don't yet have IPv6 makes it a less than useful solution until
> EVERY IPv4 accessible resource also has an IPv6 accessible address.

One doesn't follow the other. It's short sighted to view the network 
world in terms of the desktop computer. Specialized devices are a 
scenario where IPv6 makes sense. Not all the world's computers need to 
have IPv6 connectivity for me to want one.

>
> Additionally, until there are meaningful things you can get to via IPv6
> that you cannot reach via IPv4, there's little incentive to people that
> have IPv4 to add IPv6 capabilities.

I can get to my network over IPv6 today. That's meaningful to me. For 
the sake of argument, it doesn't matter that I also have IPv4 access. I 
can serve ISP services today to IPv6 only hosts.

>
> IOW, if you have an IPv6 enabled interface in an environment that
> lacks IPv6 connectivity, things bog down.
>
> No big deal, you say? Well, makes it a pain for notebooks that
> move in and out of IPv6 enabled worlds.

That's certainly a valid point.

 >> Dual stacking solves the problem of having IPv4 only hosts. It also
>> conveniently solves the problem of having IPv6 only hosts. I do
>> understand that there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, but if you
>> start dual stacking your hosts, you're at least prepared for what's 
>> coming.
> It doesn't actually solve either problem.

I guess I'll have to disagree with you there.

- Dan