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

Re: IPv6 Deployment

  • From: Fred Baker
  • Date: Wed May 30 21:08:55 2007
  • Authentication-results: sj-dkim-3; [email protected]; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2354; t=1180573576; x=1181437576; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; [email protected]; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20IPv6=20Deployment |Sender:=20; bh=BiHIcTAN7O//mA53mn116wQTYdGaHbPeU9ZjKkHNGSc=; b=i8ejTst5eMxL+znd3BI0mBXfpIUuKS8BNk/AB2Oj95eCXU0+skTUlfRYKWTlvQoBdLAyQyAW c48ro+CSpNOBe1NpMSBX409l662/NG6W1cm5/cg08/Nnyb60VjjKt+6R;

THe intention was that ipng would address the issues you quote Scott as raising. What could be addressed cleanly, and was addressed, was the number of bits in the address.

In part, I think this was due to unrealistic expectations. Security, as you well know, is not a network layer question, nor is it a link layer question, an application layer question, a transport layer question, or a "magic security layer wherever the right place to put it turns out to be" question. It is a question that is different at every layer, and requires some level of response at each layer. Ditto QoS: there is a question of ensuring each application the bandwidth, delay, and jitter characteristics it needs, the number of memory-to- memory copies between end station processes it needs, the number of competing windowing systems it needs (cf ssh vs TCP with large windows), and a list of other things.

Part of this is the denial factor. It is popular to bash IPv6 over a number of issues, and I, co-chair of the IPv6 Operations Working Group, have points on which I comment. I note that those who run businesses that depend on large numbers or addresses being available aren't asking this question any more. They may not *like* the answer, but the answer available to them is IPv6, and there aren't any others. Increasingly, they are asking me and others what they need to do to get on with life.

On May 30, 2007, at 5:27 PM, Fred Heutte wrote:


This is more in the way of a leading question for those who are
attending NANOG 40.

I'll ask it the same way I did at NZNOG back in February --
what problem is it that IPv6 is actually supposed to solve?
I used to know the answer to this, but I don't now.  In 1997
(or even years before, reading Scott Bradner's eloquent advocacy
for it back then) it would have been: address space, security,
extensions, QOS.  But it seems to me these have either been
sidestepped, addressed somewhat, or the benefits have not
overcome the costs in a clear business case sense.

As I said -- my purpose in posing this is to stimulate discussion
at Bellevue.  It was the most interesting thing talked about at
Palmerston North, at least until the cold beer arrived.

fh