[e2e] using p2p overlays to overcome recursive NATs/realms

[David P. Reed]

At 09:32 AM 2/9/2002 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I think it is pretty clear that ISPs have no interest in deploying v6.
>
>this statement is patently false, and i will not grace the rest of your
>slimy and unsupportalbel aspersions with comment.  look in a mirror some
>time.

It would be nice to be convinced otherwise, but ad hominem comments are a 
pretty poor argument.  I made some strong assertions, which you may 
disagree with.  When a large scale access provider (AT&T Broadband, 
Comcast) has a timetable for deploying v6 that is within their 
budget-planning horizon (2003?), that would indeed disprove my 
assertions.  Otherwise, we merely have a disagreement.  I can produce some 
ISP executives that will say that they have no business interest in 
deploying v6, if you like.  That may annoy you, but it's fact based - not 
an attack on you or anyone else.


>at the next ietf meeting, we will be connected to a tier one provider
>running native ipv6.  and they're not japanese.

Tier one sounds like backbone.  Hardly proof that access providers will 
deploy.  Necessary but not sufficient, and all my concerns about commercial 
attempts to block flexible use of IP at the edges still apply.

And by the way, I have read http://psg.com/~randy/010829.apnic.pdf .  It's 
a very sensible plan, and I really want to see it succeed, but I'll believe 
it when AT&T Broadband or Comcast or MSN or AOL delivers IPv6 /48 on my 
cable modem or DSL link (i.e. I can have at least a hundred or so 
accessible devices in my home network).