Experts at odds over relevance of IPv6 --- me too

Experts at odds over relevance of IPv6


I agree with most of the anti-IPv6 points is this article. But there is one statement stated as fact that just isn't completely true and is at the root of the problem.

Quote:
Internet Protocol Version 6 is a backwards-compatible replacement for the current Internet protocol, and which boasts inbuilt mobility, quality, manageability and security.


So many parts of this are wrong I don't know where to begin.
1st IPv6 is not truly backwards compatible. If I have a host that only runs IPv6, that host can NOT talk to any IPv4 host, and vicea versa.

It is true that IPv6 " boasts" lots of things. However, the truth as far as I can tell most of those things are no better then IPv4. QOS is handled the same and is more dependent on the hardware then on the IP version. Security will still have it's +'s and -'s. On the plus every device can have a universally unique address. On the minus every device MUST have a unique address. IPv6 has no NAT. Say what you want NAT is the best security most people have. Until host OS systems become more secure by default out of the box for grandma web surfer, I would rather live in world with NAT than 1 without.

Something not brought up by the article is routing table size. How big can it get? Right now the only solution be spoken about is limiting who can be dual homed to Multiple ISPs. Is this really a good idea? It should be come easier for business to multihome not harder.

I'm sure someday we'll all run IPv6 or something like it, but no time soon.

Full disclosure: OneNet offers IPv6 to its customers. Never mind IPv6 is WAY COOL and everyone should run it.