From: cr88192@hotmail.com   
      
   "Char Jackson"  wrote in message   
   news:7vc0g51s00aq9ph45fdteua8ga0o24e3bb@4ax.com...   
   > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:40:41 -0800 (PST), karthikbalaguru   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Though IPv4 clock is ticking fast, Internet is predominantly   
   >>based on IPv4 with few IPv6 implementations.   
   >   
   > Is the IPv4 clock indeed ticking fast? I've been hearing that we're   
   > close to exhaustion for quite a few years now, but I've suspected that   
   > the slow migration to IPv6 is an indicator that we're finding better   
   > ways to allocate IPv4 address, in effect slowing the ticking clock   
   > considerably. Thoughts?   
   >   
      
   NAT, bleh...   
      
   what could help the cause of IPv6?...   
   maybe the people who run ISPs and write router firmware bothering to support   
   it.   
      
   as is, someone like me is left having to use something like Freenet6 (or,   
   more correctly, it is now called GoGo6), or similar...   
      
   granted, personally a less-overly-large address format would have been   
   preferable (say, going to 64 bits), since likely this would have had less   
   bandwidth impact. maybe if it had been designed with a little nicer of a   
   migration path, things would have also been better.   
      
   for example, rather than completely redesigning the protocol, a hack could   
   have been added to expand the address space while still keeping raw IPv4   
   packets as a de-facto transport (only, with plans in place to eventually   
   dissolve it in a piecewise manner), such that the network would have been up   
   and running quickly, rather than very slowly and in bits and pieces.   
      
   but, alas, the past is gone, and the world as it is, is waiting for eventual   
   adoption, hopefully to eventually slay the NAT demon...   
      
      
   even then, it is likely that IPv4 will not completely die in the present   
   state of things, but rather that a lot of stuff may end up "virtualizing"   
   IPv4 (once the migration gets under way), such that legacy remains (as in, a   
   world with a very NAT'ed and gradually decomposing IPv4 internet, and with   
   local "bubbles" of IPv4 being routed over v6).   
      
   so, as I see it, the likely main problem with v6 was that people fell too   
   far into the temptation of radical redesign, and so made the cost of   
   migration overly high. as I have observed, radical redesign is rarely   
   something which turns out ideally in practice.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)