Quite, and one of the key reasons that OSI lost out to IP was the transition
issue.
DECNET Phase V was going to be one of the principal deployment vehicles. But
the transition from DECNET Phase IV to V was a complete bear, something that
was going to mean huge expense and huge effort.
If OSI had provided an organic transition mode that preserved the deployed base
rather than a flag day they might have got away with it, or at least had a
chance of doing so.
I don't think that the IPv6 problem is hopeless, far from it. But I do think
that we need to approach the issue as a marketting problem and not just a
technical one.
In particular we must decide on the key pain point that deployment of IPv6
compatible infrastructure is going to solve. Unfortunately lack of address
space is not a pain point for the vast majority of Internet users and their
ISPs. If Mr Greedy Bastard has an IPv4 address he is not likely to consider the
fact that Ms Netless does not to be a pain point for him personally. Worse an
ISP who years for a return to the walled garden model is going to see hyperNAT
as being a net benefit not a pain point.
We have to find a pain point that affects the people we need to deploy new
infrastructure to support both IPv6 and the transition.
The only pain point I can see as a viable driver is the cost and complexity of
network management.
________________________________
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Mon 27/08/2007 1:47 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
Subject: RE: one example of an unintended consequence of changing the/48boundary
> From: <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com>
> This message will soon reach the investment community so you will soon
> see investment analysts asking very tough IPv6 deployment questions,
> and rating stocks appropriately.
> ...
> Think back to the days when the OSI protocols were expected to be the
> next big thing
No doubt the savvier members of the investment community will remember those
days, and the predictions of how much money would be made/lost by those who
did/didn't invest in OSI, and will take that into account when they hear
similar claims (such as yours) about IPv6.
I can see the marketing slogans now: "IPv6, the OSI of the 21st Century!"
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