North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: IPv6

  • From: Deepak Jain
  • Date: Sun Jun 15 07:05:10 2003

> > At least there is general consensus among pretty much
> > everyone - with the exception of a small number of cranks -
> that IPv6 is
> > good.
> Now I'm officially a crank because i fail to see why IPv6 is any better
> than slightly perked up IPv4 - except for the bottom line of box vendors
> who'll get to sell more of the new boxes doing essentially the same thing.

Vadim --

	You're only a crank if you don't think a slightly perked up IPV4 is a good
thing. :)

	My justification for IPV6 being a good thing is this:

	1) Is IPV4 approaching an addressing limitation?
	2) Does IPV6 provide a significant buffer of new addresses (given current
allocation policies) the way
  	IPV4 did when it was new?

If (1 & 2) => IPV6 is good
If (1 | 2) => undefined
If !(1 & 2) => who cares?

	I (personally) don't think IPV6 will change the way the internet operates
in a significant fashion
	overnight. I think the vast majority of operators will just use IPV6 like
funny IPV4 addresses. I think
	this is a good thing it says the current internet basically works.

	I think box vendors will always find something to sell, and they are always
trying to rewrap existing features/functionality into new an exciting
products -- though I think its marketing's fault, not the engineers. I am
sure you will agree, network service providers do much the same thing with
VPN/MPLS tunnel/mumble products.

My $0.02,

Deepak Jain