Re: How the IPnG effort was started
2004-11-19 13:27:10
Many folks responding to this thread don't seem to be following the
arguments very closely.
Let me summarize:
1. Everyone agrees that the current situation is untenable.
I can't think of anyone who said it'll last forever.
2. Some people think we've already run out of address space.
3. Some people think we soon will.
4. Everyone laments the brokenness of NAT-based solutions.
5. Some people think that we just need to wait a bit longer and IPv6
will "tip" to the point that it sees widespread deployment.
These folks seem to be gauging their expectations based on the
deployment of the features in shipping products. This appears to be a
variation on the "if you build it, they will come" thought process that
was prevalent during the 1990s.
6. Some people also seem to think that widespread deployment of IPv6
means no NAT.
I'm not convinced of this. If it doesn't happen, then currently
broken services will stay broken.
7. Some people think that we have seen enough, IPv6 isn't going to take
off and we need to start thinking hard about something else.
I, for one, fall in this camp. I don't think IPv6 will ever "take
off". My reasons are thus:
1. Users don't care about IPv4/IPv6 - only providers do. Sometimes,
within a user organization, there is an IT department that cares, but
that's because they are an enterprise-level provider.
2. Providers don't provide IPv6 because they have no incentive to do
so. [The only counter to this I've seen presented in an article
showing that a *manufacturer* provides the IPv6 capability in their
cell phones. But, as we see with BlueTooth (which has been much more
widely adopted than IPv6, afaict), *service providers* such as Verizon
Wireless feel perfectly free to not use - or even *remove* these
capabilities.]
3. Content [which is the only reason for users to demand that
providers provide the service] that is IPv6 only is lacking. There's
lots of nice stuff that might be done *better* with IPv6 (or possibly
even not done at all without IPv6), but I'm not aware of any spiffy
service that I need/want/like that is IPv6 only. Nor am I aware of a
service that is currently not working because I'm behind an IPv4+NAT
setup, which will magically start working if I use 6to4. Please let me
know if I'm wrong, because that would be fantastic!
Legislation might force this change over. Some have suggested that
adoption of IPv6 in non-US countries is hindered by the perception that
it is another US "standard" being forced on them. Others still have
suggested that you can play on the notion that now is the time to get
in while you can still get addresses (before the US eats them all up).
That's all well and good if it happens. I don't think that the IETF
should be waiting around for this day to come.
Now, someone brought up an interesting perspective: that the end
users would deploy IPv6 w/out support from their service providers,
allowing the service providers to 'catch up' later. I see a few
problems with this notion:
1. Users can't get IPv6 address space from registrars, who are trying
to implement a policy beneficial to the service providers.
This means that people are stuck using their existing IPv4 space in
compatibility mode if they are to "route around their providers".
2. Someone suggested the you simply use a different provider for IPv6
than IPv4.
Presumably, in this scenario, you get your address space from this
new provider, then establish a 6to4 tunnel to them. I mean, no one's
seriously suggesting an organization throw real money down on yet
another circuit to yet another provider just to get IPv6 connectivity
for particular reason, right? And, presumably, the IPv6 provider isn't
actually *charging* for this service, right?
3. Users don't care about IPv6. If it's on and it just works, they'll
use it. Otherwise, they won't without some serious incentivizing.
Small data point that may be interesting to some people: getting IPv6
access on a modern Macintosh computer using 6to4 is as simple as
selecting "Network Port Configurations" in the network preferences
pane, and ticking "6to4". That's it -- instant dancing kame.
It's a bit trickier than that - you have to *create* the 6to4 network
port the first time. But, once you've created it, it's just a matter
of clicking the checkbox.
--jon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, (continued)
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Eric A. Hall
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Franck Martin
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, shogunx
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Joe Abley
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Jon Allen Boone
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, shogunx
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Joe Abley
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Michael Richardson
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Jon Allen Boone
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Joe Abley
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started,
Jon Allen Boone <=
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Joe Abley
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Jon Allen Boone
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Joe Abley
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Jon Allen Boone
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Kurt Erik Lindqvist
- Message not available
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Franck Martin
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Pekka Savola
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: How the IPnG effort was started, Paul Vixie
|
|
|