Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:36:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: smd(_at_)ebone(_dot_)net (Sean Doran)
Message-ID: <20000817233601(_dot_)D298B872(_at_)sean(_dot_)ebone(_dot_)net>
| I'm not upset at all. I am merely pointing out that there
| is a major cultural rift between IPv6-Lovers, a group which
| includes precious few ISPs of ANY variety, and IPv6-Haters
| which interestingly is subscribed to by a large number of people
| who are involved with engineering major transit backbones and
| other networks, and the vendor-engineers who support them.
So, what's new? Exactly the same happened with IPv4 and the backbone
network providers (of the time). The network providers of the 70's and 80's
didn't like IP (IPv4) at all - it challenged the way they operated, and
didn't fit with their mindset. They mostly just stood aside, didn't
participate, and claimed that the whole IP thing was doomed to fail, or
would only ever be of interest to a few academics and others who liked to
play.
There's nothing different this time, the established IPv4 network providers
see something that is challenging their established way or operating, and
the current services they offer. Largely they're claiming that this new
stuff isn't needed, they can keep on operating the way they used to, ...
Just as happened with IP 10-15 years ago, people who want to use the new
technology will start out partly installing their own wires, and partly
just layering on top of the services provided by the old providers. As the
numbers of users grows, new providers specialising in the new technology will
appear, and will start to attract customers (that is already starting to
happen). Rather belatedly the old providers will realise that they're
missing out on market share, and that all the growth is happening in an
area they chose to ignore (we're not yet at that stage). They'll attempt
to jump in a hurry - and some of them will probably succeed, and manage
to stay alive.
As to "lovers" and "haters", IPv6 isn't really the kind of thing that
should be attracting that much emotion. It certainly isn't perfect.
To be perfect, the ipngwg crowd would have had to have followed all of my
suggestions to the letter .. but for some bizarre reason, they didn't.
Unfortunately, they didn't decide to follow all your suggestions either...
| Meanwhile, the fuel caught fire beautifully when your lot
| from the B Ark saw "VPN that is subscribed to on the basis
| of kid-safeness" and claimed that it simply cannot be done
| at all, with little to no basis for such a claim,
I don't think anyone claimed a VPN couldn't be done. I certainly saw
no such claim. But I think I saw some messages which seemed to be
based on the assumption that a VPN was never in the minds of those
who seemed to be proposing dedicating bits in addresses to whatever
their favourite cause for site differentiation might be. The VPN suggestion
seems to have come purely from you, and have never been relevant to
anything really.
kre