Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

["Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>]

We have relatively PI address space in IPv4, which works fine, even with
current routers. No any problem to hold the whole world-wide routing with a
future ones. Is it a pproblem keeping 500,000 routess in core routers? Of
course, it is not (it was in 1996, but it is not in 2005 and it will not be
in 2008 - even if you will have 1,000,000 routes). IPv6 schema was build to
resolve problem which do not exists anymore (with fast CPU and cheap memory
and ASIC's).

I mean - when people switched from IPv4 to IPv6, they changed too much and
too hard, trying to implement all their ideas. Result is terrible.

IPSec - compare SSH and IPSec. Compare IPSec and PPTP. No, IPSec is
extremely bad thing.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Conrad" <david.conrad () nominum com>
To: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>
Cc: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding () burtongroup com>; "Scott McGrath"
<mcgrath () fas harvard edu>; <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008


> On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> > IPv6 address allocation schema is terrible (who decided to use SP
> > dependent
> > spaces?),
>
> Well, to date, provider based addressing works (although there were
> times when it was a close thing).  Your alternative?
>
> > security is terrible (who designed IPSec protocol?) and so so on.
>
> I wouldn't say terrible.  Annoying, perhaps, but security is often
> like that.  Your alternative?
>
> > Unfortunately, it can fail only if something else will be created,
> > which do
> > not looks so.
>
> The "something else" already exists, although many are unhappy about
> it.  It has evolved a bit -- it's now called NUTSS (http://
> nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/)... :-)
>
> Rgds,
> -drc