[arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

If you have something to dispute, dispute it. State your facts, if you
have any to state. I've stated mine.

Your mindless, factless promotion of certain view is wearing out.

		--Dean


On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Paul G. Timmins wrote:

> Dean, are you on drugs? I can't tolerate this garbage anymore. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist
> 
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > Except you can't do name resolution if you turn off IPv4.
> > 
> > I would say that's not full IPv6 support.
> > 
> > I'd say that's minimal sort-of support at best.
> 
> DNS is very severely broken in IPv6. This non-technical reason is that
> certain root operators want to keep their monopolies on anycast sales,
> and so (for technically inexplicable reasons), they have advocated
> mixing IPv6 and IPv4, and silenced dissent in apparent violations of
> anti-trust law.  So, there are no IPv6 root nameservers. Instead, one
> mixes IPv6 DNS records with IPv4 DNS records on the same nameserver.
> This totally unnecessary mixing creates stability problems for both IPv4
> and IPv6.  One has to remove IPv4 NS records to make room for IPv6
> records, so any effort to deploy IPv6 comes at the expense of IPv4
> stability. While bad enough, that isn't the worst part.
> 
> What's worse is that the DNS resolver implementations are broken as
> well. One can't just create IPv6 root nameservers because the resolvers
> don't do the right thing--there is no IPv6-specific resolver which could
> use different root nameservers for IPv6. IPv4 and IPv6 have to be mixed
> at the roots on down.  Until this is fixed, IPv6 won't really be very
> useful or else both won't be stable.  Altering and updating resolvers on
> every computer is a very time-consuming job to say the least. So, I
> think IPv6 won't be taking over in 3 years, and IPv4 won't be going away
> in 3 years.
> 
> Its probably 10+ years to fix the resolver problem, and so a long time
> before IPv6 could be ready for stable deployment outside a lab.  In that
> time, I'd say we could go to OSI CLNS instead, and have much less risk.
> 
> The good news is that one can work on both IPv6 and CLNS simultaneously
> as completely separate stacks.  Keeping CLNS separate from IPv4 this
> time will improve the process of development, and improve deployment
> stability later.
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000