No business case for IPv6, survey finds But Internet Society members report
rising customer demand, deployment plans
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032009-ipv6-business-case.html?nladnam
e=032009dailynewspmal&code=nldailynewspm187866
Business incentives are completely lacking today for upgrading to IPv6, the
next generation Internet protocol, according to a survey of network
operators conducted by the Internet Society (ISOC).
In a new report, ISOC says that ISPs, enterprises and network equipment
vendors report that there are ``no concrete business drivers for IPv6.''
Developers and Identity Services : Tackling Identity Data with Identity Hub:
Download now
However, survey respondents said customer demand for IPv6 is on the rise and
that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it is the next
major development in the evolution of the Internet.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:48 PM
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: Christian Vogt; Lixia Zhang; Keith Moore; IETF Discussion Mailing
List
Subject: Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00
I recently had this exchange with Dan Wing on the BEHAVE list:
>> > ... it seems to me
>> > that we might consider defining a generic 'referral object',
containing
>> > more information than just an address, that could be passed among
>> > application entities. It could contain TLVs that would provide
the
>> > semantics of the referred address as well as the raw address
bits.
>> >
>> > Does this seem worth exploring?
>
> Yes, this could form the basis for very useful guidance to
application
> designers. ICE does something like this already, but abstracting
its
> functions up several levels, as you propose, would be useful.
>
> Something like: "here is my IPv4 address, it goes through a
> translator so avoid using it if you can utilize my IPv6 address"
> and so on.
Brian
On 2009-03-20 07:04, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 3/19/09 at 8:17 AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> Lixia Zhang wrote:
>>> I believe that people in general agree that applications should
not
>>> use IP address for referrals.
>>
>> I don't know which people you're referring to there, but that's
>> absolutely not the case for application developers. In the current
>> internet, use of IP addresses for referrals is essential.
>
> That IP addresses are currently essential for referral is not
mutually
> exclusive with the idea that applications should not use IP
addresses
> for referrals. IP addresses fail for referrals in a vast number of
cases
> including 1918 addresses, firewalled networks, certain asymmetric
> routing cases, etc. Given the current state of the network, you can
> neither recommend nor completely forbid the use of IP addresses for
> referrals in applications. (And nowhere in what Lixia said was the
> statement that applications MUST NOT use IP addresses for
referrals.)
>
>> And in fact every application that uses DNS does exactly that.
>
> I think that's a rather narrow view of where DNS falls in the
architecture.
>
>> It's all well and good to imagine a world where there would be a
clear
>> ID-LOC separation. But we've never created such a world, and we
don't
>> currently have an ID-LOC mapping layer that is good enough to use
by
>> all applications.
>
> Yup. In part, that's what LISP is about. But I actually think it's
> incorrect to talk about having "an ID-LOC mapping layer good enough
to
> use by all applications". If we're talking about the ideal world,
> applications should almost never need to use the mapping layer; they
> should be able to simply use the ID (without touching the LOC) and
let
> the routing system deal with finding a LOC for the ID. That an
> application would have to actually deal with the mapping is an
artifact
> of the current state of affairs where neither the LOC (IP address)
or ID
> (DNS) is good enough to allow the application to do what it needs to
do.
>
>> DNS falls short in many ways. And as long as there is not a
universal
>> mapping layer that is aware of things like NATs and mobility, and
for
>> that matter as long as there are devices that impose arbitrary
>> limitations on traffic flow (e.g. connections have to be initiated
>> from "inside"), there will be a need for applications to deal
>> explicitly with IP addresses. Sure it's ugly but it's the best
that
>> applications can do.
>
> I'm guessing we're in violent agreement, but NATs and mobility and
> "traffic flow limiters" actually make it impossible (viewing it from
the
> other end) to use IP addresses: Giving a reference to myself using
my
> own IP address when I am behind a NAT is useless; using a name, if
one
> is available, is the only way to go. (And I still agree with your
above
> paragraph.)
>
> pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf