The point is that Randy was wrong when he said there weren't any v6 ISPs
in 2002, because at least some were doing it a year before that.
actually that was me. i had no idea anybody was offering ipv6 transit service
when isc first brought up ipv6; while he.net and verio both offered us transit,
that was later on (and, thank you both!)
in any case it would only have changed one thing: we would not have deployed
ipv6 at all if we'd had to use provider assigned addresses. we're multihomed
and we peer directly in a lot of places and if PA was the only thing available
we would have put up a /64 bastion network with each provider who assigned us
address space, and either not used ipv6 internally at all, or used "sitelocal"
space, in other words, NAT.
For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF list
in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many places' total
bandwidth usage. So why don't we all just cut *THAT* off because there's
no business case to support *THAT* either?
let's be clear about the remaining roadblocks. just because some of you don't
like tony li or don't like what he said, doesn't make what he said less true.
ipv6 is "too little, too soon". as long as we're making routing follow
addressing (by requiring endsites to use PA space), bastion nets and NAT will
rule the enterprise. ipv6 will work fine for the vast majority of smaller
dsl-connected or cable-connected (or ppp-connected if there still are any)
users, and for mobile data applications, and even the internet-datacenter
market. but for enterprises large or medium who build their own networks and
buy service from more than one provider and/or who peer directly, they'll
either have to have their own /32 or they'll use NAT. perhaps this size
and style of networking has been marginalized, and ipv6 will take off even
without them. i'm not sold on that proposition. and this isn't just me still
being bitter about the destruction of matt crawford's A6/DNAME architecture
by the ietf secret handshake society. i really think that the ipv6
architecture is fundamentally flawed in that it doesn't address ipv4's
"routing follows addressing" problem. we're still facing a choice between
a routing table that's too large and flaps too much, or universal NAT by
anyone who fears a renumbering penalty when they tell their ISP to pound sand.