Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

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

What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company,
family, enterprise) which wants it? Big routing tables? Is RT of 1,000,000
routes BIG? I do not think so. Memory is cheap, modern routing schemas like
CEF are effective. How many entities do we have on earth? It was a problem,
but it IS NOT ANYMORE.

IPSec - see all ISAKMP schema and IPSEC security associations, and see IPSec
incompatibilities. Compare with SSL (works out-of-the-box in 99.999% cases,
and allows both, full and hard security with root certificates etc, or
simple security based on _ok, I trust you first time, then we can work_. Why
MS uses PPTP? Because it is much more practuical vs IPSec.

IPv4 was strong because it was designed by practical people and not so much
by commiteets., IPv6 was designed by commiteets mainly. Do you know, that
'camel is horse designed by commiteet'?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi () niif hu>
To: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>
Cc: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding () burtongroup com>; "Scott McGrath"
<mcgrath () fas harvard edu>; "David Conrad" <david.conrad () nominum com>;
<nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008


> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
>
> > IPv6 is an excellent example of _second system_ (do you remember book,
> > written by Brooks many years ago?) Happu engineers put all their crazy
ideas
> > together into the second version of first 9succesfull) thing, and they
> > wonder why it do not work properly.
> > OS/360 is one example, IPv6 will be another.
>
> But I think IPv6 will one day a primary system.
>
>
> > IPv6 address allocation schema is terrible (who decided to use SP
dependent
> > spaces?), security is terrible (who designed IPSec protocol?) and so so
on.
> If you can propose better solution to not to blow up routing table with
> large number of entries you can speak at IETF v6ops.
>
> What is the problem with IPSec?
>
> > Unfortunately, it can fail only if something else will be created, which
do
> > not looks so.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Janos Mohacsi
> Network Engineer, Research Associate
> NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
> Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE  21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding () burtongroup com>
> > To: "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath () fas harvard edu>; "David Conrad"
> > <david.conrad () nominum com>
> > Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
> >
> >
> > > 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