[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Owen DeLong]

--On Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:08 +0100 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

>> > Final consideration, do you really believe in 50-100 years we will
> still
>> > be using IP at all ?.
>>
>> Yes, but, the more I learn about the current state of IPv6, the more I
> think
>> it will either be IPv4 or whatever replaces IPv6.
>
> This kind of thinking leads to surprises out of left field.
> If all current IPv4 network operators think this way, that does
> not mean that IPv6 will disappear. It means that IPv6 will be
> used by people outside the IP network mainstream and then suddenly
> one day we discover that every hospital in the world is filled
> with devices communicating over IPv6 and they want to cut
> costs of network connectivity by getting rid of their V6-V4
> gateways. Or we discover that all cellphones use IPv6 on their
> internal networks and manufacturers are beginning to release
> componentized phones where you can mix and match transcievers,
> cameras, audio devices, amplifiers, radio tuners, etc. Suddenly
> IPv6 becomes the protocol of choice for home entertainment
> systems to interface with the componentized phones. And so on.
>
> What we have here is a failure of imagination.

What we have here is multiple failures:

	+	The failure to accept TUBA as a bandaid
		and move forward recognizing that something better would
		take too long to develop given the anticipated constraints
		of the time.

	+	The failure to meet the design goals of IPv6
		and the consistent stripping down of those design goals
		until we found ourselves left essentially with TUBA plus
		stateless autoconfiguration.

	+	The failure to deliver on the promise and requirement of
		easy renumbering.

	+	The failure to recognize that IPv6 had to deliver at least
		the same capabilities as IPv4 both from a technology and
		an operational perspective before it would gain substantial
		acceptance.

	+	The failure of the operational community to participate
		significantly in the development of IPv6 or to preserve
		the importance of several operational design goals that
		got lost along the way.

	+	Failure to recognize that a GRT will not scale to IPv4
		address exhaustion, let alone IPv6.

	+	Failure to identify the need to separate the end system
		identifier role of an IP address from it's topological
		location identifier role.  (full address is currently
		used as end system identifier, while prefix is used as
		topological identification identifier)

	+	Failure to recognize that number portability is a real
		and meaningful need and that while CIDR and NAT were
		well accepted and well tolerated, they are hacks that
		come with a serious tradeoff and we need to find ways
		to restore a world where they are not needed.

I can imagine lots of things, and, I can even imagine some ways in which we
might be able to solve the above failures.  However, I am not convinced
from what I see that this will happen in IPv6.  I am convinced that if
at least some of these issues don't get addressed in IPv6, IPv6 will not
become the default protocol on the internet because of it's substantial
deficiencies compared to IPv4.

You may disagree with my assessment of the situation, but, my imagination
has not failed.  It simply starts from a different world vision.

Owen

-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050510/f9526dca/attachment.sig>