Re: We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

On 11/12/13, 8:06 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Ole Troan <otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:
>     > In the context of http://xkcd.com/927/
>
> this comic part is pretty important context, but many might not have gotten 
> it.
>
>     > This is a call for action to get to 14!
>
> So Ole is saying that we need a 14th specification/standard in order to
> bind the existing 13 (although I'm not sure how he got 13)
>
> I'm also dismayed at the number of efforts.
> It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or NANOG) and 
> describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which one they like,
> ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider.  That might reduce the
> field by half...
I'm pretty sure the "if we just get the right people in the room then
we'll get the right one's" model isn't going to work... There's a
market-place out there, that can pick one if it turns out to be
necessary. The fact that to a large degree it hasn't, might mean, it's
too early, none of extant ones are the right one, there isn't a market
need for it, or something else.

As an operator, albeit not of retail ISP networks, the fact of the
matter is I don't need transition technologies of the encapsulation or
translation variety to serve either my ipv4 or IPv6 customers, so asking
me which I find more compelling is missing the point.

> My gut is that until we have a unified story and some fielded product on
> deploying v4 over v6, that for a number of ISPs, adding v6 is just added cost
> with no savings.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature