North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

  • From: Alexei Roudnev
  • Date: Thu Jul 07 01:20:50 2005

IPv6 is an excellent example of _second system_ (do you remember book,
written by Brooks many years ago?) Happu engineers put all their crazy ideas
together into the second version of first 9succesfull) thing, and they
wonder why it do not work properly.
OS/360 is one example, IPv6 will be another.

IPv6 address allocation schema is terrible (who decided to use SP dependent
spaces?), security is terrible (who designed IPSec protocol?) and so so on.

Unfortunately, it can fail only if something else will be created, which do
not looks so.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Golding" <[email protected]>
To: "Scott McGrath" <[email protected]>; "David Conrad"
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

> There is an element of fear-mongering in this discussion - that's why many
> of us react poorly to the idea of IPv6. How so?
> - We are running out of IPv4 space!
> - We are falling behind <#insert scary group to reinforce fear of Other>!
> - We are not on the technical cutting edge!
> Fear is a convenient motivator when facts are lacking. I've read the above
> three reasons, all of which are provable incorrect or simple fear
> repeatedly. The assertions that we are falling behind the Chinese or
> Japanese are weak echoes of past fears.
> The market is our friend. Attempts to claim that technology trumps the
> market end badly - anyone remember 2001? The market sees little value in
> right now. The market likes NAT and multihoming, even if many of us don't.
> Attempts to regulate IPv6 into use are as foolish as the use of fear-based
> marketing. The gain is simply not worth the investment required.
> - Daniel Golding
> On 7/6/05 11:41 AM, "Scott McGrath" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing
> > or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX and
> > be easier to 'sell' to the financial people.
> >
> > As I read the spec it makes multi-homing more difficult since you are
> > expected to receive space only from your SP there will be no 'portable
> > assignments' as we know them today.  If my reading of the spec is
> > incorrect someone please point me in the right direction.
> >
> > IPv6's hex based nature is really a joy to work with IPv6 definitely
> > the human factors part of the equation.
> >
> >                             Scott C. McGrath
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
> >>> IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been
> >>> written
> >>> as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in
> >>> under the
> >>> accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications
> >>> would
> >>> not be needed.
> >>
> >> IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if it had solved a problem
> >> that caused significant numbers of end users or large scale ISPs real
> >> pain.  If IPv6 had actually addressed one or more of routing
> >> scalability, multi-homing, or transparent renumbering all the hand
> >> wringing about how the Asians and Europeans are going to overtake the
> >> US would not occur.  Instead, IPv6 dealt with a problem that, for the
> >> most part, does not immediately affect the US market but which
> >> (arguably) does affect the other regions.  I guess you can, if you
> >> like, blame it on the accountants...
> >>
> >> Rgds,
> >> -drc
> >>
> -- 
> Daniel Golding
> Network and Telecommunications Strategies
> Burton Group