nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:58:43 -0400
There is an element of fear-mongering in this discussion - that's why many of us react poorly to the idea of IPv6. How so? - We are running out of IPv4 space! - We are falling behind <#insert scary group to reinforce fear of Other>! - We are not on the technical cutting edge! Fear is a convenient motivator when facts are lacking. I've read the above three reasons, all of which are provable incorrect or simple fear mongering, repeatedly. The assertions that we are falling behind the Chinese or Japanese are weak echoes of past fears. The market is our friend. Attempts to claim that technology trumps the market end badly - anyone remember 2001? The market sees little value in v6 right now. The market likes NAT and multihoming, even if many of us don't. Attempts to regulate IPv6 into use are as foolish as the use of fear-based marketing. The gain is simply not worth the investment required. - Daniel Golding On 7/6/05 11:41 AM, "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath () fas harvard edu> wrote:
You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing scalability or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX and be easier to 'sell' to the financial people. As I read the spec it makes multi-homing more difficult since you are expected to receive space only from your SP there will be no 'portable assignments' as we know them today. If my reading of the spec is incorrect someone please point me in the right direction. IPv6's hex based nature is really a joy to work with IPv6 definitely fails the human factors part of the equation. Scott C. McGrath On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, David Conrad wrote:On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been written as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in under the accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications would not be needed.IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if it had solved a problem that caused significant numbers of end users or large scale ISPs real pain. If IPv6 had actually addressed one or more of routing scalability, multi-homing, or transparent renumbering all the hand wringing about how the Asians and Europeans are going to overtake the US would not occur. Instead, IPv6 dealt with a problem that, for the most part, does not immediately affect the US market but which (arguably) does affect the other regions. I guess you can, if you like, blame it on the accountants... Rgds, -drc
-- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Kevin Oberman (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 James (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Sean Doran (Jul 02)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Petri Helenius (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Daniel Golding (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Joe Abley (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 John Payne (Jul 15)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Petri Helenius (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Brad Knowles (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 06)