North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
Alexi, Ah, You mean the excellent 'The Mythical Man-Month' Fred Brooks wrote a second edition a few years back. I had not thought of IPv6 in terms of the second system effect but you are absolutely correct in your appraisal. Scott C. McGrath On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote: > > IPv6 is an excellent example of _second system_ (do you remember book, > written by Brooks many years ago?) Happu engineers put all their crazy ideas > together into the second version of first 9succesfull) thing, and they > wonder why it do not work properly. > OS/360 is one example, IPv6 will be another. > > IPv6 address allocation schema is terrible (who decided to use SP dependent > spaces?), security is terrible (who designed IPSec protocol?) and so so on. > > Unfortunately, it can fail only if something else will be created, which do > not looks so. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Golding" <[email protected]> > To: "Scott McGrath" <[email protected]>; "David Conrad" > <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:58 AM > Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 > > > > > > > > There is an element of fear-mongering in this discussion - that's why many > > of us react poorly to the idea of IPv6. How so? > > > > - We are running out of IPv4 space! > > - We are falling behind <#insert scary group to reinforce fear of Other>! > > - We are not on the technical cutting edge! > > > > Fear is a convenient motivator when facts are lacking. I've read the above > > three reasons, all of which are provable incorrect or simple fear > mongering, > > repeatedly. The assertions that we are falling behind the Chinese or > > Japanese are weak echoes of past fears. > > > > The market is our friend. Attempts to claim that technology trumps the > > market end badly - anyone remember 2001? The market sees little value in > v6 > > right now. The market likes NAT and multihoming, even if many of us don't. > > > > Attempts to regulate IPv6 into use are as foolish as the use of fear-based > > marketing. The gain is simply not worth the investment required. > > > > - Daniel Golding > > > > On 7/6/05 11:41 AM, "Scott McGrath" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing > scalability > > > or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX and > > > be easier to 'sell' to the financial people. > > > > > > As I read the spec it makes multi-homing more difficult since you are > > > expected to receive space only from your SP there will be no 'portable > > > assignments' as we know them today. If my reading of the spec is > > > incorrect someone please point me in the right direction. > > > > > > IPv6's hex based nature is really a joy to work with IPv6 definitely > fails > > > the human factors part of the equation. > > > > > > Scott C. McGrath > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, David Conrad wrote: > > > > > >> On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote: > > >>> IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been > > >>> written > > >>> as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in > > >>> under the > > >>> accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications > > >>> would > > >>> not be needed. > > >> > > >> IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if it had solved a problem > > >> that caused significant numbers of end users or large scale ISPs real > > >> pain. If IPv6 had actually addressed one or more of routing > > >> scalability, multi-homing, or transparent renumbering all the hand > > >> wringing about how the Asians and Europeans are going to overtake the > > >> US would not occur. Instead, IPv6 dealt with a problem that, for the > > >> most part, does not immediately affect the US market but which > > >> (arguably) does affect the other regions. I guess you can, if you > > >> like, blame it on the accountants... > > >> > > >> Rgds, > > >> -drc > > >> > > > > -- > > Daniel Golding > > Network and Telecommunications Strategies > > Burton Group > > > > >
|