Re: How the IPnG effort was started2004-11-18 02:37:28
Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a "newbox" was to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic. But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic.
At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >> Let's assume ... that a large part of the Internet is going to > >> continue to be IPv4-only. ... you've lost me. where will growth occur? two variables: "nat?" and "stack?" so, six possibilities: nat? stack? ---- ------ nat v4 nat v6 nat v4+v6 nonat v4 nonat v6 nonat v4+v6 given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, ... v4 will last as long as it's useful.
Yes. But may be more as long as there is nothing for better thant an "IPv4 with longer addresses".
Let consider there would be a Consumers Organizations and Users At-large Committe (COUAC) as one of the IETF entities, sharing into the Internet standard process in due form and time - my approach since long before IETF started. What would they ask for would be probably termed totally differently. They would probably talk of "smart-plug" (the origin of the word "plug-in" I know is Dupont's Project Manager shouting in 1984 he did not care about protocols and all he wanted was a plug, a smart plug if it had to be, but a plug). And they would welcome the transition to a simpler and ubiquitous "data-jack".
How they would be built, they do not care if it works, if there is no hassle like registering, waiting, paying for this and that, and it can do what they want, i.e. to support their everywhere/everyone to everywhere/everyone relations in just (radio) pluging-in.
The least they want to hear is "relative ease of acquiring v6 address space" even least than "relative ease to delpoy". This is what we think great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up.
You know, just like a mobile number. (what we discuss here is antedelluvian for them. Just like using an operator to phone).
This is for example what the French FCC is investigating in public questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number users will get at birth or creation (with additional ones if they buy them); Their network national ID, warranted by their law so they can use it in contracts, in life support services, in commercial relations. They do not want smart solutions, they want sure, secure, simple, stable, real life services for middle-aged house-wife, elders and kids.
IPv6 will win the day it will not be managed by IETF, not by ICANN, not by RIRs, but by Govs. and will belong to the international law and treaties. The customer is not the user. The customer are 192 States law makers. Show Govs that IPv6 is a sovereignty field for them and not for the US Gov alone, they will enforce it immediately (and this is simple to achieve). Today they see IPv6 as another "USivernal" semi-obligation. The day it is a free governement protected and accepted service, it will become Universal. This is just what ITU is investigating : that will please them. All the more than with its NGN work, it speaks a language they can understand and which appeals on them.
Let face it, today ITU is far more promoting IPv6 than ICANN and IETF. And this is good; as Harald puts it: IPv6 is a finished product to be managed ouside of the IETF (and of ICANN IMHO, hence of IANA, now IANA has become just an "ICANN function").
Just consider the difference of commercial impact between presenting IPv6 as : - IPv4 with longer addresses - structured addresses under TCP/IP80% of the people buy magazines in kiosk for their cover. The IPv6 current cover is not appealing.
jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf