North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Randy Bush
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 18:30:25 2005

there would seem to be two paths here.  

the one we are currently walking has more and more complexity
to try to deal with the lack of reality-based design in v6.
every step, instead of making things simpler, adds more
complexity to deal with the mistakes of old narrow decisions.

consider an alternative.  v6 is barely deployed at all, maybe
1/(10^6) of what it will be.  so, a change that seems very
expensive now will be trivially amortized if it saves later,
while a cost that increases in time (shim6, 6to4, ...) will
cost us massively in the future.

so, if we had a free hand and ignored the dogmas, what would we
change about the v6 architecture to make it really deployable
and scalable and have compatibility with and a transition path
from v4 without massive kludging, complexity, and long term

you can pay me now or pay me later.  but later, everything
costs a million times as much.