Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

["Marshall Eubanks" <tme () multicasttech com>]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:24:08 -0700
 Tony Li <tony.li () tony li> wrote:


Dear Tony et al.;

This is beginning to sound like an IETF or IRTF mail list, and, lo!, I get an email today 
from Leslie Daigle :

A new mailing list has been created to provide a forum for general
discussion of Internet architectural issues:

   architecture-discuss () ietf org
   https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

The architecture-discuss list serves as a technical discussion forum for
all members of the IETF community that are interested in larger
architectural issues. It is meant to be an open discussion forum for
all long and/or wide range architectural concerns related to the
Internet Architecture. In particular, it may be used to discuss and
bring forth different points of view on controversial architectural
questions. Discussions that drill down and dwell on specifics of
individual protocols or technologies are to be discouraged, redirected
to appropriate other fora, or re-cast to discussions of broader
implications for Internet architecture.

Maybe this  conversation should move there. Maybe a lot of operators should join that
list. Probably couldn't hurt.


Regards
Marshall Eubanks

> Daniel,
>
> > > If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems
> > > that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to
> > > happen again.
> >
> > That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocol
> > transition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is. We  
> > can't see
> > into the future. However, assuming that IPv6 is the Last Protocol  
> > seems a
> > bit short sighted. If we get 20 years out of IPv6, that will be  
> > just peachy.
>
>
> I see that as a worthy goal and no, I don't see that as flawed.   
> While we certainly cannot guarantee that v6 will be the last  
> protocol, we should certainly be designing for it to be the best that  
> we can possibly make it.  Just how many times do you think that we  
> will replace all implementations?
>
> This change is simply fundamental to the way the Internet works.   
> There is almost as much pain associated with this change as if we  
> were to change the electric outlet voltage in every single country to  
> a mutually incompatible standard.  Can you imagine power companies  
> making that change and then telling consumers to expect another such  
> change in 20 years?
>
> To not even *attempt* to avoid future all-systems changes is nothing  
> short of negligent, IMHO.
>
>
> > Of course, if we can't get PI address space for enterprises and real
> > multihoming, there won't be any real IPv6 deployment. Lots of  
> > (possibly
> > illegitimate) IPv4 trading and NAT, but not IPv6.
> >
> > These aren't nice to haves. Even if it shortens the life of IPv6,  
> > that is an
> > acceptable trade-off.
> >
> > IPv6 is not the Last Protocol.
>
>
> If you do get PI space for multihoming, then by definition, it cannot  
> be the last protocol.  In fact, it will have cemented v6's lifetime  
> as just 10 more years.
>
> Tony