[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Kevin Kargel]

> >
> >Why is there such a big push to drop IPv4? 
> 
> Didn't you read John's posting yesterday?

Yes I read that post, but his arguments don't stand up.

> 
> "If you've got a way to keep IPv4 running, and still maintain
>    the enough hierarchy to keep global routing running, then
>    it's time to enter the spotlight and share the secret.  There
>    is no doubt that its so much easier for us all to stay on IPv4
>    then to move to IPv6, we just don't know how to do it, and
>    still keep the Internet running"
> 

There is no reason that dual-stack won't work..  we are doing it now.  

> >Is there a reason that v4
> >and v6 can't operate concurrently in perpetuity?
> 
> Yes.  Because they won't in the long term.  Consider the 
> common RJ45 plastic crimp plug.
> Why is it used for all different forms of Ethernet speeds, 
> T1's, and many other applications?  Because it is senseless 
> to have multiple incompatible connectors, it drives up prices 
> for the connectors as well as the tooling needed to crimp them on.

The RJ45 plug for T1 cam about because hardware manufacturers liked the
smaller form factor of the RJ45.  It let them make smaller physical
interfaces and saved money.  This actually works against your argument.
The reality is that industry has found a way to efficiently use the same
hardware for multiple purposes using multiple protocols.  You can now
use the same inexpensive RJ45 cable to run ethernet, X.25 et.al..  So if
the internet is like an RJ45 then...

> 
> Time was that many T1 connectors were DB15.  It was a lot of 
> trouble to continually build cables with RJ45 on one end and 
> DB15 on the other, so the market eventually stopped accepting DB15.
> 
> If your goal is to have IPv4 and IPv6 operate concurrently in 
> perpetuity on the Internet you will be ultimately stymied.  
> But until then it will be more costly to run both concurrent, 
> and so it is to our advantage to make the concurrent period 
> as short as possible.
> 

I certainly agree that is will be more costly, add administrative burden
and make networking more complicated.  This is true of many things that
exist in networking today.  Most networks run multiple routing protocols
and export routing data between the protocols.  It is not uncommon to
find RIP, IS-IS, BGP, iBGP and others running on the same router.  This
allows routing to take place between different networks (including
legacy networks) whose administrators initially set them up with
different philosophies.    Granted these networks should ultimately
migrate to a simpler strategy as legacy networks attrite, but in the
mean time there are methodologies to allow them to communicate.

> >I would suggest that if IPv6 is a good thing (and I firmly 
> believe that 
> >it is) then networks will naturally gravitate to IPv6.  That 
> being the 
> >case then let IPv4 die a natural death of attrition.  There 
> is no need 
> >to murder it outright.
> >
> >If in fact IPv4 continues to survive and thrive alongside 
> IPv6 wouldn't 
> >that very fact demonstrate the need to keep it going and foster it?
> >
> 
> How do you foster something that isn't going to be available to new
> people in a few years?

Who says it isn't going to be available in a few years?  Anyone in
authority?  I have seen no enacted rules saying anything about the end
of v4.  I have seen a lot of speculation.  I suspect it is going to take
quite a while for v4 to go away.  

Even if v4 is deprecated in the official realm, I suspect there will be
a resurgence of the anarchistic network that started TCP/IP in the first
place.  As long as people are willing to pay for it the top tier
providers will continue to route it.  

When AT&T, Sprint, AlterNet, Global Crossing and Cisco announce the end
of IPv4 then I will take it seriously.  Until then it is all
speculation.

> 
> > I see no reason to 'force' people to switch.  They
> >will move when it is in their best interests to do so for 
> features and
> >markets.
> >
> 
> A rather strange statement because the people ARE being forced anyway.
> It is kind of like saying that 911 didn't force the US to invade
> Afganistan.  Of course it did.  But I suppose there are those few
> ultraliberals who comfort themselves by repeating that.
> 
> Ted
> 

Who is being forced?  Are you being forced?  I am still running v4 in my
networks.  I have no plans in place to deprecate IPv4.  My upstreams are
giving me no hint that they are going to run anything but v4 in the next
few years..  if anything I am forcing them to bring v6 in to the mix
concurrently.