>>>>> "cb" == Chris Buechler <nycbug@xxx> writes: cb> Speaking from the perspective of the organizations whose cb> networks I run, it won't happen in the foreseeable future cb> because there's no business reason to do so. There is huge benefit if you have B2B links over which you want to expose machines not on the Internet, especially if you want to make a lot of them. Without v6, you'll have colliding address spaces and have to do double-NAT. This type of NAT could be a complicated pain in the ass for the often very poorly-written internal custom software that's used over these links. It's just a question of slow-to-understand businesses realizing this fact about their software process. It could also be, for VoIP, that infrastructure gets cheaper if the phones can have their own IP's, because you can simply route&switch the traffic of thousands of phones instead of having it pass through a CPU somewhere. I doubt that will happen soon, though---so far the phones' software is so insecure you'd be insane to expose it directly to other potentially hostile phones on the Internet. Even passing through the encoded audio stream without re-encoding is scary to me and might let a malicious caller take over your VoIP set. I expect codec bugs will come out soon if they haven't already.
Attachment:
pgpGsPw2lKFew.pgp
Description: PGP signature