Re: FW: Why?
2005-03-11 07:40:46
I have a totally different evaluation of the IPv6 issue I suggest you to
consider.
IPv6 was specified as "IPv4 with larger addresses", this is what has been
delivered and this is what is deployed by the RIRs and demanded by the
market. One uses IPv6 as an extended IPv4 space. Any pressure for IPv6 will
give the feeling that IPv6 is not IPv4 fully compatible and will lead to a
disinterest of IPv6 (because IPv6 is the least used one, please will strive
for stability). To say that IPv6 is better is even worse and will push
people to better IPv4 (with NATs and others). To look for "the killer
application" is the worst signal to the market: the market does not want
revolution but services. (NATs are a general patch concept: HTTP.1.1 is
another way to save on IP addresses which is more blocking the Internet
development than NATs. NAT are now userboxes which are used for many other
purposes and will stay).
The reason we need IPv6, IMHO is totally different. We need its size and
flexibility to switch the internet from being an access network to an
interactive network. I explain: when you start building a network you build
its addressing to optimize the routing with the resources you have
(centralized then decentralized network -the network of networks is
decentralized). Then your network grows, and there is a time it can become
a distributed network (the initial Paul Bahan/Louis Pouzin catenet concepts
now permitted). The leader is no more the routing but the directory. So,
you do not adapt the addressing to the routing (as do the RIRs) ,you design
the routing to match the addressing. IPv4 or IPv6 is allocated along the
same line by the RIR. This was the initial phase of the internet. In the
case of the Internet its mature phase needs addressing schemes most
probably more based upon geopolitic structures of the demand (but it would
be fool to dedicate the addressing to such an approach only).
The IETF had five things to do.
1. to identify the need. It did it with "longer address". It did not
identify the legacy/global transition aspect (NGN?) but that was really up
to the ICANN process to do it.
2. to develop the standard. Done.
3. to guide the experimental phase what it did with the legacy deployment
(RIRs). Done.
4. to transfer to the market operators what has been made with NRO being
now formed and now ITU. May be sometime Space and Geography blocks. Done.
5. to support their specific needs to permit them to be complementary and
adequate to their markets, their coopetition supporting their deployment
and fostering cost reduction, stability and innovation. This is the phase
we are entering now.
The first need they all have is that IPv4 becomes fully IPv6 compatible.
When this is achieved, the transition is achieved.
For what it may be worth, from the users side.
jfc
At 13:04 11/03/2005, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
This discussion seems to take as a premise the view that if we define
applications only on IPv6, even though they could be defined on IPv4, that
this will give people a reason to use IPv6.
It also seems to take as a premise that if we don't define ways to work
around NATs, people won't use the applications with NATs.
The fact is that external evidence indicates that both premises are false.
For a long time we tried ignoring NATs. As a result, people crafted many
strange and non-interoperable ways to work with NATs.
I know of several initiatives that tried to define their protocols for
IPv6. Some even thought they had good reasons. Before the work was even
done, I saw customers requesting vendors to supporting the initiative
using IPv4 directly.
Trying to pretend something won't work with IPv6 is not a substantive
value add for IPv6.
Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have already seen
several major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
with IPv6, even though they can get enough public address space.
As far as I can tell, following through on the kind of approach discussed
here would simply make our products les useful, and reduce actual
interoperability in the field.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 05:36 AM 3/11/2005, shogunx wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Tony Hain wrote:
>
> >>Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
> >>crap???
>
> FWIW I'm also concerned that we are doing too many different NAT
> traversal protocols. It should be sufficient to just define how IPv6 is
> tunneled across NATs and start using more IPv6 in the applications.
I agree wholeheartedly. Lets face the reality of the situation.
Carriers have abused IPv4 for financial reasons. As a result, NAT is
widely deployed, because it was and is an effective workaround for
dealing with siad carriers trying to squeeze extra money from IP
addresses. There is nothing that can be done about that now, except
implement the solution that has been written to solve the problem, IPv6,
right on top of the existing NAT's. With full application layer support
for v6, NAT will eventually deprecate, and be little more than a bad
memory. The open source community has a wide variety of v6 enabled
daemons and clients already, for almost every widely used protocol. While
these can easily be implemented on any host, good luck getting the general
public to do so. The solution for migration most likely lies in somebody
developing a little v6 router, that autoconfigs a tunnel with a small
allocation of addresses.
Scott
>
> >>On another topic, why is it that the API is so sacred that we will
create
> >>a massive array of complex approaches to avoid defining a real session
> >>layer. We put imitation session efforts at layer 4 (SCTP), layer 3.5
(HIP),
> >>layer 3.25 (shim), and the TRILL crap is trying to do it at layer 2.5.
>
> I don't understand what makes you think TRILL is trying to do a session
> layer. If it does, then any other routing and tunneling approach should
> also be given the same verdict.
>
> Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- FW: Why?, Tony Hain
- Re: FW: Why?, Erik Nordmark
- Re: FW: Why?,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <=
- Re: FW: Why?, Tim Chown
- RE: FW: Why?, Tony Hain
- Re: FW: Why?, Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re:Why?, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: FW: Why?, Tony Hain
- Re: FW: Why?, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Why?, Keith Moore
- Re:Why?, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Why?, Melinda Shore
- Re: Why?, Keith Moore
|
|
|