[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"

[Jim Small]

> > I also believe there is tremendous benefit for innovation with IPv6.
> 
> This has been claimed for ages -- yet we have not had a single killer
> application.

Of course not.  Based on history I would expect a killer application to appear when we hit 10% Internet traffic penetration.  That will constitute enough of an audience to attract developer attention.  I'm guessing this is around 2014.

> > NAT has become a strangle hold choking off innovation.
> 
> At least half of the problems "introduced" by NATs are also introduced
> by firewalls that "only allow return traffic"  -- So I don't necessarily
> buy the "IPv6 fosters innovation" thing...

True, but firewalls are much easier to configure than NAT.  As someone who does network/security consulting and teaching for a living I can tell you that most people struggle with NAT but not with firewall rules.

> > no way.  Deploying IPv6 provides virtually limitless address space
> > and makes it far easier for developers to come up with fantastic new
> > applications.
> 
> Some might argue "gimme the IPv6 killer app, and I'll do the ipv6
> roll-out if the app is good enough".

It is a little bit of the chicken and egg problem, but really IPv6 is the area code problem.  What do you do in the telephone system when a region/country runs out of area codes?  You have to expand the address system.  Ask anyone outside of IT if they would be willing to put their neighborhood behind a PBX to preclude expanding the addressing system and they'll laugh at you.  They would never accept such a change.  In order to support Internet growth and facilitate easy communication (the point of networking and IP!) we need IPv6.


--Jim