actually - Paul Francis has done the community a massive favor by making the argument for NAT as a viable tool strong enough that NAT and NAT-like technologies are pervasive.
NAT is even used to "glue" v4 and v6 enclaves together. So it is too early to tell if IPv6-only will be the inevitable end game (in our lifetimes), or if NAT-enabled infrastructures will continue to be pervasive, leaving v4 enclaves running for longer than our childrens live. This policy proposal is one means to track rights to use a given resource, and it is not clear to me that it has to fit in the sole provence of a single address family (although it is clearly targeted for one of them as currently written) I guess that puts me in the camp of favoring this work. For the rest of the zelots (in either camp) - put down the retoric and quit trying to teach the pigs to sing. Its a waste of your time and it annoys the pigs. /bill On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > > Lucky rich you to have such capacious v4 connectivity to be worrying about > such downstream stuff. The rest of the world is starring at abyss of zero > connectivity unless it deploys v6. > > Solve that one. > > > Christian > > On 11 Nov 2011, at 07:15, Brett Watson wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > >> The tide is coming. The tide is wet. The tide is full of IPv6 water. > >> Get over it. > > > > Awesome, so you've solved the multi-homing issues with v6? The RA/DHCPv6 > > issues? (I'll just leave it at those three). > > > > -b > >
