On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 03:15:30PM +0200, wojtek@wojtek.3miasto.net wrote:

 > IMHO ipv6 is at first - stupid way to fix "lack of ip4 address space"
 > at first - more than 95% of ip address space is unused. 
 > the problem is address organization. instead of just (for example) give 
 > some big pools to countries (based of people count) like something/9 for
 > poland, something/9 for england, something/7 for russia, something/7 for
 > USA, something/5 for china ;) , and then divide them to providers etc.,
 > they gives very small pools (/16 AT MOST).

A tightening address space is not the only reason that IPv6 exists.

 > 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.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to what the routing group at
the IRTF has been saying.

 > 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
 > ;)

Just imagine real end-to-end security between pairs of hosts.  OH WAIT,
you don't get that with NAT, because NAT has to modify the packets.

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

Wonderful, once again, people arguing against technology without having
any clue about what they're talking about.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>