[6bone] came across this article any opinions??

[Tony Langdon]

> So here I am, manager of an IPv4-based network that works 
> fine, is addressed
> in a logical and easy-to-maintain manner, is secure, and 
> integrates my voice
> and data. I just don't see any need to convert my functional 
> IPv4 network to
> IPv6.

Sounds like he's found an IPv4 solution - and doesn't have to wrestle with
NAT screwing up a plethora of proprietary protocols which insist on making
incoming connections to random ports, or several voice/videoconferencing
systems, each with their own protocol.

I tend to play with whatever comes along, as well as regularly using a
number of specific applications which have specific requirements when it
comes to open ports, etc, and quite frankly, NAT is a pain.  Native IPv6
with each machine having public IP(v6) addresses would make life so much
easier.  On some of the support lists I'm on, the most FAQ is "I'm trying to
run two copies of XXX on my network.  I have a (NAT) router with 3 PCs.  Had
one working fine, but I can't get the second one to work!!!   Help!" (the
answer being due to the fact the app needs a couple of UDP ports forwarded
for incoming traffic).

Ironically, it may be the home/hobbyist users who lead the IPv6 push....  if
it can be packaged into a slick advertising campaign with a catchy slogan
(and maybe a couple of IPv6 networked cellphones thrown in... :) ).

This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality
or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this
correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and
notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this
correspondence if you are not the intended recipient.

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.