North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 Deployment
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: