[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....
xing.cernet at gmail.com
Wed Aug 31 22:38:08 EDT 2011
I think that's the real disconnect. This list is primarily concerned with
address resource policy. From the perspective of address policy, IPv6 is
pretty much a no brainer as it DOES solve the resource shortage issue
admirably. From almost every other perspective, IPv6 stinks on ice and for
those of us who would have to deal the problems it presents, it's a no
brainer to try to extend the useful life on IPv4 as much as possible.
Speaking as an end-user who is fortunate enough to have enough address space
in both address families, I'd much rather have IPv6 than have to suffer
through NAT, let alone the various forms of NAT++ that are coming (IVI,
DS-Lite, 6RD, NAT64, NAT444, NAT4444, NAT44444444444..., etc.).
IVI and NAT64 are different from other kind of transition tools, since they
can make IPv6-only hosts communicate with the IPv4 Internet. Our experience
indicates that IPv6-only hosts naturally achieve the IPv4/IPv6 transition.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML