Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG)

[Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () cisco com>]

On Mar 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Far from it, but, there are lessons to be
> learned that are applicable to the internet, and, separating the
> end system identifier from the routing function is one we still seem
> determined to avoid for reasons passing my understanding.

And this is the real answer, of course.

There were two fundamental design decisions made back in the Olden  
Days which continue to exert a strong and in many cases quite  
negative sway over this entire set of inter-related issues:

1.      Utilizing the endpoint identifier in the routing function, as
        Vince Fuller and you (among others) have stated, and

2.      The ships-in-the-night nature of the TCP/IP protocol stack.
        This latter design decision is a big part of the reason TCP/IP
        has been so successful to date; however, we find more and
        more kludgey, brittle hacks to try and provide some sort
        of linkages for purposes of enforcing policy, etc.  The
        irony is that these attempts largely stem from the unforeseen
        side-effects of #1, and also contribute to a reinforcing
        feedback loop which further locks us into #1.

Given the manifold difficulties we're facing today as a result of  
these two design decisions (#2 is a 'hidden' reason behind untold  
amounts of capex and opex being spent in frustratingly nonproductive  
ways), perhaps it is time to consider declaring the 'Limited- 
Deployment IPv6 Proof-of-Concept Experiment' to be a success, take  
the lessons learned (there are a lot more unresolved and potentially  
problematic issues than those mentioned in this thread) into account  
and get started on IPv8.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () cisco com> // 408.527.6376 voice

     Everything has been said.  But nobody listens.

                   -- Roger Shattuck