|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: When IPv6 ... if ever?
> [email protected], Sunday, September 10, 2000 6:38 AM wrote: Excellent Post, BTW. > | The bottom-line appears that everyone is waiting for > everyone else to > | twitch first, then the shoot-out starts. However, no one is all that > | interested in twitching. > > Also, nobody is willing to get shot! > > The deployment of IPv6 is going to be EXPENSIVE in terms of real opex > and probably real capex as well, it IS going to be visible on > the bottom > line of every ISP on the planet, eroding whatever margins one has. > | The real question is whom is benefiting from sustaining the current > | situation? > Now, ironically, in the whole IPv6 selection process in the IETF, > there were multiple proposals which paid a considerable amount of > attention to the problems of partial, incremental deployment at > the initial design level. CATNIP in particular was clever, because > it provided not just a new packet format (which is all IPv6 did), but > also a strategy to transition to practically ANY new packet format, > should the initial assumptions about the pervasiveness of IPX and CLNP > be wrong (which they were). > > IPv6's initial assumptions are WRONG (we will die from > routing dynamicism I tend to agree here that routing is one of our largest bugga-boos. What we have is held together with spit, baling-wire, and liberal amounts of the "racer's edge" (duct-tape). With CERF.NET bouncing all over the place, for the past three weeks, maybe I've become hyper-sensitive to those issues. But, it appears to me that the entire BGP system is a very brittle patch. It is for this reason that I recommend ABOVE.NET to all my globally visible portal/ASP/B2B clients. However, this doesn't relieve the problem of the end-user being outside the ABOVE.NET system and having to live with cold-potato routing, for uploading files to the site. We have too few public peering-points and they are under-sized (what happened to the regional NAP idea?). > Who will take the chance of a huge investment in managing > IPv6 deployment, when it is not a given that IPv6 really > will be the header networks will use after IPv4? > We're talking about stranded assets being > the only thing one gets for the money... What you are saying is that going to IPv6 is a one-way function? I've actually looked at some of this. At the risk of ridicule, may I mention Flemming's IPv8? It nested IPv4 inside the packet, as a sub-set, and actually planned for co-existance and inter-operability with IPv4. It also answered a LOT of routing issues. Regardless of specific implementation, that seems like a more prudent approach. Does anyone know why such an approach-policy wasn't followed by the IPv6 team? Yes, I agree that CATNIP was also clever. With a little work, it "could have been a contender" (Brando<g>). The choice of IPv4 and IPv6 shouldn't be an XOR function and the point remains that transition was not a consideration of the IPv6 design (this is obvious). In most commercial shops, such an approach would not have been accepted/tolerated. Let alone, win any sort of design contest, as did IPv6.
|