I share pretty much the views expressed on the page.
Small addition to that would be the fact that current "transition" proposals
are killing the possibility of transition as such. IPv6 is strongly dependent
on IPv4 through various "ipv4 compatible" addresses, which are essentially
private IPv6 addresses, i.e. not globally routable. BTW, not the only private
v6 addresses in this sense. This basically means that it will be nearly
impossible or at least extremely hard to wash out IPv4 from the implementation.
Personally I think that removing IPv4 can not be justified.
Instead of introducing two networks internetworked in a proper way, there are
two networks tightly coupled to each other. Besides all, such approach nearly
exclude the design of yet another network, which can be naturally
internetworked with existing networks. Are there many believers that IPv6 is
the last one and forever?
The power of layering was heavily underestimated if not ignored. Isn't it clear
enough that we would be nowhere if bridging of link layers would take over
internetworking of networks. Is this imaginable situation?
The ambitions driving the new network design certainly deserve respect because
it is natural to improve things but hardly the way it is being done.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On
Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: den 14 januari 2004 18:29
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu
Subject: dubious assumptions about IPv6 (was death of the Internet)
Since the topic of IPv6 transition seems to have surfaced in this
discussion, I thought I'd send a pointer to my argument as to why a lot
of the common assumptions about IPv6 transitions are dubious.
I put these things in a web page to avoid needing to re-type the same
arguments over and over, and because I think I express things more
effectively in this form than when trying to finish an email message on
a difficult topic before going to X (where X is one of
{work,lunch,dinner,bed}). One downside is that the web page isn't
directly tailored to a specific list discussion - so some of the
assumptions listed on the web page are apropos to the recent discussion
on this list while others are not.
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html
Responses should go to my private email address if you want me to see
them - I've disabled my subscription to the ietf list and am currently
only scanning the archives once every few days. (In general, it's a bad
idea to assume that you know whether someone will receive a reply sent
to the entire list.)