Dave,
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
IPv6 _is_ IPv4 with more bits and it is being deployed that way.
That sort of equivalence statement applies when the new version is
a minor upgrade to the previous, rather than require massive
changes to the infrastructure AND to client applications. Having to
run parallel stacks, having substantial changes to administration
and operations,
I believe that _if_ there was IPv6 support in network management,
provisioning, back end systems, CPE, router ASICs, etc., there
wouldn't need to be significant change to administration or
operation. You would obviously need to change systems to deal with
128 bit values in ACLs and filters, etc., but that should be a simple
SMOP. In terms of provisioning, the only change that _might_ be
necessary is changing the default customer allocation from a /28 (or
whatever) to a /48. This might imply a change in some aspects of
business models for those folks who charge extra for IP addresses,
but I can't really see that as being that big a deal.
Of course what turns out to be a big deal is getting to the point
where that starting "if" statement passes. However, the point of my
statement is that in reality, IPv6 must be treated pretty much the
same as the thing is it attempting to replace. If not, you're
requiring 1 billion people to change the way they do things and we
have given them (a) no reason to and (b) no real tools to do it. This
won't work.
and having major changes to the minimum required set of
capabilities is more than just a few more bits.
Can you give an example of what you mean by this?
Thanks,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf