Noel,
I especially like the proof by emphaticus assertionus: " It's pretty
clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal -
which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4."
Reminds me of the discussion between two dinosaurs back in the Jurassic:
"well, it is now apparent we are not going to get to the point where we
have binocular vision".
I think there are at least two possible scenarios:
1) a bunch of kids in college write cool software and document how they
do it, and band together with other interested parties to form a
consortium of people who build stuff that uses IPv4 as a bearer and run
their own protocols on top of it (e.g. IPNNG ). Over time, people
recognize there may be economic gain in deploying IPNNG networks.
2) Some of the incumbents think about (1) and do the same. They do it
with the two largest constituencies of data networking in the next 5
years (PCs in homes and cellphones). They may have actually started
the development of same several/many years ago. They might actually
think about using IPv6 in place of IPNNG because they are lazier than
bright college kids with time on their hands :-).
IPv6 is already taking off, and IPv6 will even more once it is clear to
all that IPv6 deployment is not gated by ISPs deploying IPv6. A core
problem in the IETF is that its major source of people is down in the
"ISP space". ISPs don't need IPv6. It is the end system folks that
need IPv6, and they KNOW they need it, and are acting accordingly.
The really good news is that IPv6 CAN be deployed without the networks
changing. The ISPs can "catch up" when 1) they need to and/or 2)
when they want to for the purpose of capturing economic gains.
In terms of the concerns of dual stacking: if you were a cell phone guy,
would you put IPv4 on your phones? I think not.
Regards, peterf
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:17 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
> From: Jon Allen Boone <ipmonger(_at_)delamancha(_dot_)org
> In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted
> within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be. It appears
> that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6.
Ah, you need to adjust your clock, or calendar, or whatever. SIP (what
we
now call IPv6) was created in 1992 (it was presented to the ANTF meeting
in August '92), and was adopted as IPng at the 30th IETF in Toronto, in
July 1994. That's already more than 10 years.
Just to give everyone a sense of what that really means, here are some
things to jog our memories. In 1994:
- The WWW had about 2,700 sites, total.
- The current Microsoft operating system was Windows 3.1
Think about that for a minute.
It's pretty clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated
goal - which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4. Even many IPv6 proponents
are now speaking of an essentially indefinite period of co-existence.
Which essentially voids the original basic argument *for* IPv6...
And don't give me any of that "oh, we really needed to have the X system
available, now we've got that it'll really take off next year". We've
been hearing this exact excuse for years - I have a whole file full of
them.
Yes, there is going to be some deployment of IPv6. (With the amount of
money that's been spent on it, it'd be totally astonishing if there
*weren't*. If I were a barn manufacturer, and had the kind of budget
that's been spent on IPv6, half the airline passengers today would be
flying around on jet-propelled barn doors.) It will see some use in
discrete areas of the network, particular networks that utilize IPv6.
It may even find a certain amount of utility as an end-end naming layer
(which is incredibly ironic, but that deserves a rant in itself); but
again, that not the original goal - which was to be the ubiquitous
packet
layer.
Look, I really do understand Brian's point - that the current situation
is not good.
But acting like IPv6 is going to magically save us - when we have year
after
year after year after year of actual experience that is telling us "no,
it
isn't" - is not the way to fundamentally improve the situation.
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's
really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process),
if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on
your
face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make
lemonade.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf