Yes, I am aware that some applications are IPv6 only. But I don't
think that they have enough momentum to carry the IPv4 world forward
into IPv6. The applications that are following that route are
self-selecting for requiring little or no IPv4 connectivity.
There are two models of technology adoption that might be applicable
here. The paradigm that I think most IETF transition planning was
based on was vinyl being replaced by CD. The advantages of CD were
obvious to anyone who wasn't an audiophile bore who had spent $5000 on
a turntable and some clever marketing. So the transition occurred even
though it required people to repurchase their vinyl records on CD.
But IPv6 does not deliver a clear technical advantage to the purchaser
over IPv4. So the model that is more appropriate is Betamax vs. VHS
and the question is whether the technical factors that the designers
think people should care about (picture quality, ability to freeze
frame) win over the ones that they actually care about (ability to
record feature length movie on one tape, open standards, availability
of content).
If we were in a vinyl/CD type race then the previous IETF strategy of
attempting to maximize the differences between the technologies would
make sense. In that circumstance you would want to kill off NAT64 and
so on.
But in a Betamax/VHS type contest, attempting to differentiate the new
through obfuscation merely raises barriers to transition. In that
circumstance you want to minimize the differences between the two
technologies so that they can be used interchangeably.
[Oh and I am aware of the ridiculous claims by Lieberwitz and Margolis
concerning the history of Betamax/VHS. As with their work on QWERTY,
it was performed for a DC thunk tank being paid to deliver an argument
that network effects do not exist. As such it is paid advocacy, not
scholarship and their claims do not merit consideration.]
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Thierry Ernst
<thierry(_dot_)ernst(_at_)inria(_dot_)fr> wrote:
Dear all,
I follow this amusing debate - I'm not reacting to this post specifically.
I would like to point out that there are people out there specifying
communication architectures for new uses of the Internet, e.g. Cooperative
Systems for communications involving vehicles. The system running between
all entities composing their network will be living in an IPv6-only world.
They will only deploy transition mechanisms to keep communication going on
with other parts of the Internet not running IPv6, if that proportion is
still significant by the time these new systems get deployed (hopefully,
they won't have to do so, and for sure they won't deploy dual stack).
It seems to me that these new uses are always ignored when one is debatting
transition from IPv4 to IPv6. In some many cases, it is simply transition
from something not IP to IPv6. So, there will be IPv6-only systems deployed
out there (the sad news is that there are also sectors transitioning from
non IP (e.g. X25) to IPv4 - just because they are not aware about IPv6 or
are still thinking IPv6 is for the next decade).
Regards,
Thierry.
On 15/06/10 02:10, Mark Andrews wrote:
In
message<AANLkTimoqnpmKcbitki07KAG9xTROYIv84RqSmo0dq84(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>,
Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews<marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org>
wrote:
I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only
served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry about MTA's
that don't know about MX records and no longer add A records
to accomodate them.
Why would there be any IPv6 only served zones?
Because it going to get harder and harder to get stable IPv4
addresses. ISP's are looking at moving their entire client base
from having unshared public addresses to shared public addresses.
What John and I have been trying to get across here is that there is
no incentive to create an IPv6 only zone now and never will be in the
future. You present an induction without a base case.
Except IPv6 only zones already exist so there must be some incentive to
have them.
Back in the days when Internet on phones meant WAP, there was a
possibility of them being supported on IPv6. But now the iPhone has
changed the model and the Web on a phone will look just like the rest
of the net and so they have to run IPv4.
That is the big flaw in the IPv6 ready program. It assumes that the
incentive for transition is that IPv6 is a good in itself. It is not,
in fact IPv6 will be slower (more header baggage) than IPv4 and if you
are IPv6 only you will have to go through gateways.
And IPv4 will have multiple header re-writting. DPI to "fix up" the fact
that headers have been re-written multiple times along with checksum
re-calculations etc.
I actually expect IPv6 to be faster in the end if only marginally. Most
measurements to day say that IPv4 and IPv6 are roughly the same.
We do seem to be making some progress. I have been banging on about
this problem for six years. When I started NAT was universally
considered to be the problem. People are now seeing the NAT-PT
approach as being a possible framework for a solution rather than
something to be deprecated as 'historic' because they (wrongly)
imagine true Internet is NAT-free.
The more I look at NAT-PT (NAT64/DNS64) the less I like it. Way
too many kludges especially when there is an alternative, DS-lite,
which doesn't have nearly as many problems that need to be kludged
around.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf