Internet transparency (Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion)
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Nov 21 21:27:14 CET 2011
On 2011-11-21 20:22, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 23:13, Matija Grabnar wrote:
>> Well "the users don't want end-to-end" is an appeal to authority,
> Sure, you can look at it that way if you want to. My actual intention is
> to get the IPv6 kool-aid drinkers to look at what people have been
> saying for years and draw their own conclusions from it.
>> And I think it misses the point. The vast majority of users
>> doesn't understand the issues involved in "end-to-end" vs NAT to NAT
>> vs network to network VPN. They just want to do their jobs.
> This much I agree with.
>> The question is, which is in the long run, the most effective way of
>> enabling them to do what they need to do?
> No, it isn't. And this is a key point. The question is, what solutions
> will corporate IT administrators accept, and why?
Corporate IT departments are generally speaking the enemies of
innovation, which seriously erodes my interest in their desires.
The same goes for the preference of some service providers for
walled gardens, which helps their selfish commercial interests
rather than the ability of their users to access new services.
Yes, there is a tussle between the universal deployment of IPv6 global
address space and these conservative forces who prefer a second-class
opaque Internet. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the
implied scope of this list.
More information about the ipv6-ops