Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, George, Wes <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>   Interestingly, most of the above statement still works if you do
> %s/IPv4 Literals/Adobe Flash/g, though Android has hopped on that
> particular bandwagon too.
>

That analogy *IS* interesting, isn't it? Can you imagine what the reaction
would be if carriers had responded to the introduction of handsets without
support for Flash by insisting that the HTML5 solution for replacing Flash
be available only to handsets that also support Flash programming
interfaces as a translation layer in the platform?

You're simply advocating for pushing this problem and therefore all efforts
> to motivate people to stop using IPv4 literals back onto the carriers [...]
>

I see myself advocating against permitting the carriers to escape
responsibility. As I view it, they snoozed while operating systems people
worked diligently to make dual-stack hosts ready for the transition. Now
they'd like an easy escape— asking for host operating systems and
applications to maintain the transitional state indefinitely, while they
make a clean break to green fields now.

If there is a good and fair reason to shift these burdens from the carriers
onto others, then I'm failing to recognize it. I'm not saying there isn't
one. Just that I don't know what it could be.


-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering