Quoting RFC2860 [Re: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt]

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Sep 27 23:02:44 CEST 2010

On 9/27/2010 1:57 PM, Tony Li wrote:
>> BTW, "the issue" with PI is not just multi-homing, it's also portability. In my conversations with folks about this (going all the way back to when I was at ICANN and talking to serious people about how to get IPv6 deployed sooner), enterprises that have PI IPv4 now won't even consider IPv6 without PI.
> Except for a few early adopters, transitioning to IPv6 is going to be a hassle and not free.  Most people will not do so unless they absolutely have to.

And when you (well, maybe not _you_, but others) ask why people haven't 
bothered to deploy IPv6 yet, and/or the related questions of why 
operators aren't really interested in what comes out of the IETF 
nowadays, please refer to this post.

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating in this context. 
Either the operators get everything they have now in IPv4, or the answer 
is going to be more v4 NAT, not IPv6. (I.e., go with the devil you 
know.) Of course, by your criteria that's fine, since it also solves the 
routing problem.



	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list