wojtek@wojtek.3miasto.net writes:
> 
> another thing is that "routers can't handle so large routing table".
> false. there are already algorithms which works perfect with even 100000
> entries. just routing software is primitive and has to be changed. not
> protocol.

What are you proposing?  Carrying each IPv4 address as a /32?  That is
over 4 billion routes.

> another thing is NAT. NAT isn't bad as ipv6 authors says. NAT is good as
> it gives security.
> just imagine every windoze machine with REAL world-accessible IP address
> ;)

Ahh yes, NAT is so good that things like netmeeting on that Windows box
are going to "Just Work" right?

> the major change of ipv6 would be larger packet headers.

The major change of the "www" was more / better porn in the packets.
What's your point?
 
> the plan of ipv6 address space division is stupid. 2^13 for major
> providers is not enough as there is no definition of major provider.
> it would be allocated not where it should, but where someone would be
> smart and/or have lot of money.
> 
> address space SHOULD be allocated by geographical placement.

Are you also proposing to require GLOBAL regulations that force national
networks with national aggregation points and national routing?
The network is not so easily broken up into geographical regions.

Do you really want to force all Polish companies to connect to the official
Polish network access point rather than however they want?
What about backbone providers that span countries?

-Andrew