[e2e] using p2p overlays to overcome recursive NATs/realms

[Randy Bush]

> I think it is pretty clear that ISPs have no interest in deploying v6.  A
> fair number of them would love to stay in v4 because the lack of addresses
> creates a steep entry barrier for competitors.  Others like the idea that
> they can differentiate service for business users by charging an arm and a
> leg per IP address, even when they aren't scarce.

let's see.  the evil isps stay at v4 because the address space scarcity
allown them to monopolize.  but they should give address space away because
it's plentiful.

perhaps you should at least try to understand the operational business
before you foam irrationally and inconsistently about it.

address space is a pita to the isps.  it is easily gotten if justified, but
it is hard to track and manage and produces zero income.  and the cable
jocks have a major pita because, with a million customers, provisioning
special needs just does not scale, as there is no useful support in the
technology (hint: you can't listen to customer igp because they'll announce
network 16/8 or whatever at you).

it's not the evil isps, but the clue-free ersatz researchers who foist v6
upon the world with a half-assed solution, more address bits and not one
iota of work on routing, no transition design (pity the poor folk trying to
sort out the dns v4/v6 transport mess), yet pontificate on the evils of the
greedy bastards who are having trouble deploying the crap when only one
significant router vendor can even support it.

get a clue

randy