Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

[Joe Maimon <[e-mail]>]

Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Xipengxiao
> <xipengxiao=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> My point is, given PCI DSS 4.0 (what Jen wrote as PCR DSS 4.0), we should tell enterprises they no longer need NAT. But if some enterprises still insist, respect their decision.
> Ignore them. IPv6 doesn't solve any problem they have, and adding NAT
> to IPv6 still won't solve any problem they have, because IPv6 still
> won't solve a problem they have.
>
> <snip>
>
> Even government mandates to get enterprises to adopt a networking
> protocol don't work - the Internet is supposed to be running CLNS by
> now as mandated by governments around the world. (I expect Vint Cerf
> was being nice while working on this rather than truly believing OSI
> would take over.)
>
> Explaining the Role of GOSIP
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1169.html

Given that there is indeed IPv6 mandates in various forms that seem to 
have some level of traction and ipv6 deployment inducement, I expect you 
mean rather see bottom->
>
>
>   It's more important to get enterprises to use IPv6 ASAP, than to
> insist that they use the "right" IPv6 solution.
> Why is it important to get enterprises to use IPv6 ASAP?
>
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>

Because IPv6 needs critical mass to succeed due to its strategic IPv4 
incompatibility and therefore IPv6 proponents are looking and hoping to 
find or create more mass until critical from wherever it can be found. 
And if Enterprise networks roll out in greater quantity than currently, 
that would add quite a bit.

Unfortunately, these proponents are frequently the same ones that only 
want IPv6 deployed in their preferred fashion, which is 
counterproductive to the overall goal.

Joe