<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Matthew Huff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mhuff@ox.com" target="_blank">mhuff@ox.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
IMHO, the push to force end-to-end connectivity (no-nat) that pervades the IPv6 community has slowed the growth of IPv6 considerably.</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Personally I don't have an issue with that.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The way I see it, regardless of this issue, it was always going to be unrealistic to suppose that enterprises (which have may more resources than consumers) would be substantial early adopters of a new networking protocol whose main reason for existence is to solve a global resource shortage. The incentives aren't there. And if you look at history, enterprises weren't at the forefront of IPv4 adoption either. I wasn't there, but I bet that at the time, there were plenty of enterprise network managers who scoffed at this IP stuff, saying "We'll never connect our networks to the Internet, and so it doesn't make sense to use this IP stuff. We're way happier with frame relay".</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>IPv6 adoption may be happening a bit more slowly as a result, but it's happening nonetheless (growth is ~3x year over year) and the architectures that are being deployed are cleaner, which at the end of the day will lead to a lower network cost for everyone, including enterprises.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Enterprise networks are very complex, routinely employing stuff like double / triple NAT, captive portals, MAC-address based authentication, etc. etc. Personally I would hate that complexity to be a model for residential or mobile Internet access, because complexity has capex, opex, and reliability costs, and I think those just aren't the right tradeoffs for the majority of Internet users, who are residential or mobile.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The way I see it, if the price of adopting a simpler, lower-cost architecture is that enterprise adoption happens later on (because make no mistake, if IPv6 is widely deployed in residential and mobile networks, it *will* happen in enterprise networks sooner or later), then that's an acceptable tradeoff. Others of course will disagree.</div>
</div></div></div>