Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

David,

David Conrad wrote:
> > That sort of equivalence statement applies when the new version is a 
> > minor upgrade to the previous, rather than require massive changes to 
> > the infrastructure AND to client applications. Having to run parallel 
> > stacks, having substantial changes to administration and operations,
> I believe that _if_ there was IPv6 support in network management, 
> provisioning, back end systems, CPE, router ASICs, etc., there wouldn't 
A rather large IF, don't you think?  Something like "IF everyone in the world 
wanted peace, peace would be easy to achieve."
That's the lesson of the installed base:  Making a change to the 
infrastructure is ALWAYS a very big deal indeed.
Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6, very little 
attention was paid to facilitating transition by maximizing interoperability 
with the IPv4 installed base.

> need to be significant change to administration or operation.  You would 
> obviously need to change systems to deal with 128 bit values in ACLs and 
> filters, etc., but that should be a simple SMOP.  In terms of 
Programming tends to be the smallest issue for large scale transitions.  Admin 
and ops tend to be the large concerns. So once your SMOP is taken care of, 
there is the not-so SMO admin and ops for the entire Internet, with what seems 
to be little incremental benefit for incremental adoption.
Incremental benefit for incremental adoption has typically been the key to 
gaining large-scale adoption, particularly for improvements to an entrenched 
service.

> Of course what turns out to be a big deal is getting to the point where 
> that starting "if" statement passes. 
Right.


> However, the point of my statement 
> is that in reality, IPv6 must be treated pretty much the same as the 
> thing is it attempting to replace. 
In a standalone sense, perhaps.  That is, in terms of conceptual issues, 
perhaps.  Alas, since you are in the ops world, you know that there is rather 
a large difference between concept and practice.
IPv6 must modify decades of installed base software, management and use and it 
is pursuing this as a wholly parallel software, admin and ops effort.

> > and having major changes to the minimum required set of capabilities 
> > is more than just a few more bits.
> Can you give an example of what you mean by this?
I'd be glad to be disabused of this understanding:  IPv6 is is pursuing this 
as a wholly parallel software, admin and ops effort.  That it re-uses some 
code is nice but isn't the issue.
  *    Entirely new IP Address allocations, starting with an RIR, moving on 
to all infrastructure entries and including DNS, and parallel operations of 
such things as routing, Neighbor Discovery protocols, IPv6 Stateless Address 
Autoconfiguration, ICMP.  (Maybe more?)
  *   Dual, simultaneous admin and ops activities, for IPv4 and IPv6. That's 
a big deal.
d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf