On 15-jan-04, at 12:48, Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB) wrote:
I share pretty much the views expressed on the page.
I don't share all of them (9 billion people in 2050, 3.7 billion usable
IPv4 addresses, show me some math that makes this work) but where on
this page is there a point being made? It seems more like a fairly
random collection of statements.
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.
??? Which kind of IPv4-related addresses would a host with native IPv6
connectivity and IPv6-enabled applications need?
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.
Removing IPv4 from the code would be a peculiar idea to say the least.
But running IPv6-only works for the most part. I tried this on the most
recent version of MacOS and it's very easy to disable IPv4 for all
interfaces except loopback. If you manually configure a nameserver
that's reachable over IPv6 and use IPv6-capable applications, no
problems whatsoever. People do give me weird looks when I say that I
want to test running IPv6-only, though.
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?
Forever is a very long time. IPv6 is far from perfect, but none of the
issues are such that replacing the protocol because of them makes
sense. If we're going to see something new it will probably be a
niche-only thing for a very long time. But since a simple lack of
address space won't be an issue in IPv6 (of course this leaves the
complex lack of address space) it is almost certain that it will be
possible to translate back and forth between the new protocol and IPv6
in a way that's compatible with existing IPv6 implementations, so
deployment won't be an issue.
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.
Talking about power, where are you going to find the power to run those
16 million+ entry CAMs at 10 Gbps+ without a network layer?