Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:01:32AM +0200, Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org wrote:
> 
> > But it also misses something basic - the value that IPv6 brings to the 
> > party is mostly related to increasing the address pool. If that is not 
> > true, if we have enough IPv4 addresses that we can build parallel 
> > networks everywhere, then we don't need a new protocol in the first 
> > place. If it is true (and it is) then you have to assume that there 
> > will be edge networks and service networks that are IPv6-only or 
> > IPv6-dominant pretty early - pick your reason. Once you have an 
> > IPv6-only/dominant service network, you have the question of IPv4 hosts 
> > having to use it to communicate over it, IPv6-only/dominant hosts 
> > needing to communicate over IPv4-only/dominant networks, and IPv6-only 
> > hosts needing to communicate with IPv4-only hosts.
> 
> You seem to assume also that upgrading the IPv4-only network to dual
> stack is not an option.

Between networks the "enough IPv4 addresses that we can build parallel
networks everywhere" argument works, for the ISP systems.  In end user 
or customer systems, I would expect we'll see a lot of dual stack that 
is IPv4+NAT alongside global IPv6.    From the ISP perspective what they
might see now is a handul of users achieving that by using a tunnel broker
(probably not one run by the ISP itself) and the challenge is offering 
(native, dual-stack) IPv6 from the ISP infrastructure directly.

-- 
Tim/::1