"With the widespread use of Network Address Translation there is no compelling or immediate need for IPV6": Really? I won't get into the technical details of NAT-PT (I assume that's what you mean in your self-proclaimed "expert lingo" when you say "Network Address Translation"), but, NAT-PT by itself is not as widespread as the hype suggests simply because of its several application layer performance issues; for example, FTP ( or any other application that embed IP Addresses )does not work properly. NAT-PT only solves some specific forms of translation problems as a separte ALG (application level gateway) is required to support each protocol.
Which expert in the world suggested that there is no compelling need for IPv6? Cisco and some other vendors are supporting IPv6 since 2003. They are doing this not beacuse they are stupid enough not to know the lack of need for IPv6 but because many large corporations and governments started migrating to IPv6 several years back.
Your unreasonably aggressive response is childlike and unneccesary. This is a discussion board and not a mud throwing contest.
And if I chose to get "run over" thats my choice . But thanks for the advice anyway, irrelevant as it is.:-)
You apparently are not an expert on any technology. With the widespread use of Network Address Translation there is no compelling or immediate need for IPV6. Riverbed is the market innovator in the WAN optimization space so get on board or get out of the way before you get run over.