Paul Lustgraaf <grpjl@iastate.edu> Wed, 14 February 1996 15:17 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15067; 14 Feb 96 10:17 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15063; 14 Feb 96 10:17 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08097; 14 Feb 96 10:17 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15052; 14 Feb 96 10:16 EST
Received: from nissan.cc.iastate.edu by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15015; 14 Feb 96 10:14 EST
Received: by nissan.cc.iastate.edu with sendmail-5.65 id <AA16888@nissan.cc.iastate.edu>; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:14:51 -0600
Message-Id: <9602141514.AA16888@nissan.cc.iastate.edu>
To: ietf-list@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: IPv6
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:14:51 -0600
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Lustgraaf <grpjl@iastate.edu>

> Because there are few user demands for IPv6 (why: increased functionality
> gains are negligible) only a few vendors will bundle IPv6 in with IPv4
> (because it costs money to build IPv6). Some major vendors have no existing
> plans to ever deploy IPv6. No smooth migration to IPv6 is conceivable unless
> that changes.

And those vendors will cease being major vendors in a couple of years
if they don't make those plans soon.  Many of us NEED IPv6 to survive.
There are few user demands for IPv6 because it isn't available yet.  As
soon as users get a chance to take a machine out of the box, turn it on,
and have it configure itself as a part of the Internet, you can bet your
last dollar that they will never be satisfied with IPv4 again.

> Note that IPv6 offers us the possibility of carrying on the "old view" of a
> globally connected Internet made up of public addresses. Since IPv6 is not
> viable, this viewpoint is also not viable. Thus, an underlying assumption of
> the "Last Call" is becoming obsolete. 

That's your opinion.  Others have come to the opposite conclusion.

> Unless IPv6 suddenly becomes viable, I believe that the solution to our
> problem is best found by
> 1) advancing "plug and play" technologies

Built in to IPv6.  It will never be easy in IPv4.  The base technology
of IPv4 just is not up to the job.  That's why IPv6 was designed in the
first place.

> 2) Improving the linkages/mappings between private/public address spaces    
>     so that communication is not impaired by having multiple address spaces.

Unnecessary, but possible, with IPv6.

> 3) Once the disadvantages of private addresses have been removed (from 
>     the users perspective), then the IETF may target "freeing up" already 
>     allocated public addresses which are being used solely for private
>     purposes.

Totally unnecessary with IPv6.

Paul Lustgraaf             "Its easier to apologize than to get permission."
Network Specialist                                     Grace Hopper
Iowa State University Computation Center                   grpjl@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                                 515-294-0324