On 11/6/2004 3:53 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In IPv6, I see our job as standardizers to make sure the thing we have
defined is well-defined enough to let it work, and then get the hell
out of the way.
Pardon me for saying so, but I think that represents the canonical problem
with v6 deployment and some other large-scale efforts; there hasn't been
enough solid leadership promoting the agenda. By way of analogy, the I*
collection of bodies is really good at things like facilitating discussion
about the kinds of laws that we all want to live under, but they are lousy
at doing things like building the interstate highway that actually lifts
the system upwards.
Usually this is good, because usually there are vendors out there that
will do the build-up work, and we can let the market take its own path.
But in the case of IPv6, there is a real dearth of products to choose from
(especially in the SOHO space), and there is a real lack of availability
from ISPs. It's not just impractical for SOHO networks to deploy IPv6, it
is almost foolish to even try given the lack of availability. The right
fix here is to make IPv6 deployment easier. I think the RIRs are falling
down here -- everytime a request for a /24 IPv4 block is rejected, the
letter should be accompanied with an offer for a /24 IPv6 block, for
example. Similarly, vendors need to be met with and encouraged to "take
one for the team" so to speak, and sink R&D money into products. Both of
those are areas where the I* has not done well, and where comments like
Harald's above make success less likely. Like I said, such a position is
usually okay, but in this case it's not the appropriate tact.
We're going to see another multicast here if we don't do this kind of
work. Then we'll see another "spam problem", where the shortcomings
eventually do bite us in the collective butt because we've shown no
leadership until it was too late.
There is still some technical work that needs done, too. NATs exist
because (1) address space is difficult to get but also because of routing
table limitations. If BGP can't handle millions of IPv4 /24 blocks, why
will millions of IPv6 blocks work better? What do you mean it won't?
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf