[arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

[Dean Anderson]

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