OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Fri Jul 1 22:16:04 UTC 2005

Fred,

On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> Maybe you're saying that all of the applications you can think of  
> run over IPv4 networks a well as IPv6, and if so you would be  
> correct. As someone else said earlier in the thread, the reason to  
> use IPv6 has to do with addresses,

Oh, you mean the 16 bits of additional address space IPv6 provides?   
I find it ironic that this is the same amount of address space NAT  
(eww. I said a bad word) buys you.

> not the various issues brought up in the marketing hype.

And yet, we constantly hear the spin of IPv6's "improved security",  
"simpler routing", etc., etc., when IPv6 fans talk to rooms not full  
of network geeks.  Remember the marketing hype about OSI?  Remember  
the marketing hype about ATM?

> The fact that doing so would run the IPv4 address space instantly  
> into the ground wouldn't be a factor would it?

No, actually, it wasn't.  Really.  I can very honestly say that this  
was NOT a consideration in how IPv4 address space was allocated to  
organizations in China, at least when I was at APNIC (if that was the  
request you were talking about).

Rgds,
-drc