North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators

  • From: Patrick W.Gilmore
  • Date: Mon Apr 19 00:27:11 2004 
On Apr 18, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:


On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:



Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse
to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in
v4.



Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we
wouldn't have this problem" more and more.



If you completed that thought, you would realize, "but I'd have so many
more problems which are so much harder to overcome (if it is even
possible to overcome them), that it really ain't worth it."



Of course, many technologies start out as inferior cousins to existing
stuff. Just not usually "version 6"....






Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4:
take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously
your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't
filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link
to either fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to
another primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering
is much easier in IPv6.




This does not address the issue. If my /48 is filtered, I am still
at the mercy of the provider with the super-CIDR. If that network is
down, so am I.



True. However, many people don't get to do better than this in v4
either.



Anyone who tries and does not use one of the handful of providers who
filter does. IOW: This is a non-argument.



The point still stands - without real multi-homing so I do not have to
be dependent upon a single vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option.



Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even considered when v6 was being
engineered? Are the people who started the v6 movement really that
out-of-touch with reality? Or were they arrogant enough to believe
they could limit control to a few entities and the user base would just
go along with it?



--

TTFN,

patrick