>> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do >> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and >> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick. > > The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and > enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated > sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit > numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done, > and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but > the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading > stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying > "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien > language!" > > At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has > a chance to become a swan.
sorry, i am not interested in the marketing and glossy paper crap. and your dissing isps and enterprises is a part of the problem not part of an approach to a solution. this reminds me when one of the ietf ivory tower fools said (during the TLA?NLA wars), and i quote, "the HD ratio will not work because operators do not understand logarithms." and he still stands in the way of useful progress. randy
