Re: Topic IPv6

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

One more message, and then this subject header goes into
my filters.
On 22/11/2016 01:49, Alexander Nevalennyy wrote:
...
> 1. Denying NAT technology in way of stopping all anonymous action in the
> Internet.

Meaningless. Many of us here have hated NAT for 20+ years, but we are
not the protocol police and cannot get rid of it.

> I am not sure how is possible to change different RFC.

Changing RFCs will not get rid of NAT.

> 2. Dividing pool of IPv6 between countries like it done in telephone
> industry. For example prefix  for Los-Angeles 1213::/16, Moscow 7495::/16

Internet routing goes by topology, not geography, so this is a bad idea.

> 3. Usage SLAAC for all devices making IPv6 address

Some operators prefer DHCPv6 so that they can control host behaviour.
And in some cases there are other alternatives.

> 4. Making international deals to regulate Internet job (ICANN maybe like
> regulator and Interpol like central cyber - police)

ICANN is in no sense a regulator; it's a clerical service that allocates
names and numbers to registries. Apart from that, governance issues are
way out of the IETF's scope (and have nothing much to do with the IP
version number).

   Brian