[mdlug] OT: the great IPv6 debate

[Dean Durant]

Hello, I've just finished reading Dan Bernstein's comments on what he calls the IPv6 mess. I think his points are valid. 

However, someone out there (IETF, IANA, ICANN, I don't know) obviously controls those Class E "reserved for future use" addresses. My idea is that while it was smart to reserve them, it's not smart to never use them. If now is not the time to use them, when will be? Is this an old idea, or not workable ? 

So I say, whoever controls those addresses should say, OK, we'll give you one, or two, or ten, but, by law (pass the law if needed), you must use them to route back and forth between IPv4 and IPv6. Give financial incentives if necessary. 

Only give them to the highest level providers. They then can turn around and charge a small premium (perhaps) for access to IPv6 in this fashion. People can still route directly from IPv6 to IPv6 on their own, but Bernstein has pointed out why this will never happen: there is no existing IPv6 infrastructure. 

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html 

Bernstein points out that IPv6 was not designed to be an extension to IPv4. My idea provides that extension, if my idea makes sense. I'm not saying give out all of the class E addresses, but however many as makes sense. Maybe just a total of what, 512? 1024? How many in all are there? 

However, I am not a networking professional. Just a curious bystander. But, if the U.S. Congress has stated that IPv4 exhaustion is a national security issue, and China *is* building an IPv6 infrastructure, maybe "natting forever" is not going to work. 

Thoughts?