|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
We have relatively PI address space in IPv4, which works fine, even with current routers. No any problem to hold the whole world-wide routing with a future ones. Is it a pproblem keeping 500,000 routess in core routers? Of course, it is not (it was in 1996, but it is not in 2005 and it will not be in 2008 - even if you will have 1,000,000 routes). IPv6 schema was build to resolve problem which do not exists anymore (with fast CPU and cheap memory and ASIC's). I mean - when people switched from IPv4 to IPv6, they changed too much and too hard, trying to implement all their ideas. Result is terrible. IPSec - compare SSH and IPSec. Compare IPSec and PPTP. No, IPSec is extremely bad thing. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Conrad" <[email protected]> To: "Alexei Roudnev" <[email protected]> Cc: "Daniel Golding" <[email protected]>; "Scott McGrath" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:01 AM Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 > On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Alexei Roudnev wrote: > > IPv6 address allocation schema is terrible (who decided to use SP > > dependent > > spaces?), > > Well, to date, provider based addressing works (although there were > times when it was a close thing). Your alternative? > > > security is terrible (who designed IPSec protocol?) and so so on. > > I wouldn't say terrible. Annoying, perhaps, but security is often > like that. Your alternative? > > > Unfortunately, it can fail only if something else will be created, > > which do > > not looks so. > > The "something else" already exists, although many are unhappy about > it. It has evolved a bit -- it's now called NUTSS (http:// > nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/)... :-) > > Rgds, > -drc >
|