On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote: > o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out > of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well > better be able to stand on its own.
Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to be able to stand on its own two feet? Because I wasn't; that's patently absurd. However, a fixation on v6-only operation makes no sense for general-purpose deployment when most content and peers are only reachable via IPv4. I appreciate that there are walled gardens, captive mobile applications, telemetry networks and other niche applications for which v6-only networks make sense today. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the network that supports what the average user thinks of as the Internet. The immediate task at hand is a transition from IPv4-only to dual stack, regardless of how many NATs or other transition mechanisms the IPv4 half of the dual stack is provisioned through. Joe
