<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bill Darte wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087531DB5@ex1.cait.wustl.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator"
content="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<title>RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency
TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call</title>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format --> <br>
<p><font size="2">.... <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:cja@daydream.com...wrote">cja@daydream.com...wrote</a>...<br>
<br>
I guess I am still waiting for someone to come up with the killer<br>
application for IPv6. Or a marketing scheme... get this new<br>
service/speed/whatever if you sign up for IPv6. Of course you have to
have<br>
IPv6 deployed to sell it as part of a service.<br>
*************<br>
<br>
Seems to me the sell is... the future comes with IPv6...we(as an ISP)
offer that service now.. if you want to be part of the future, come
with us....<br>
(then a little FUD about what happens if you don't get on board) ;-)<br>
<br>
bd<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
There is no way to develop a "killer ap" for IPv6. There is too much
inertia with IPv4. I think the only way to get IPv6 going is to
develop a transparent "magic"* gateway between IPv6 and IPv4. This is
not NAT, tunneling, etc. It is a IPv6 backbone with IPv6 routers and
IPv6 addresses assigned to every IPv4 host in the world. This is
premised on the fact that IPv6 is so huge that every org could put a
copy of the entire IPv4 space in one small section of each
organization's IPv6 space. I've talked about this before but will
restate it here in a somewhat different way. The gateway box passes v4
requests for addresses through the box for outside domains and knows
how to translate the internal v4 address to it's external v6 address
along with any changes in protocol needed. As more and more machines
become IPv6, the requirements for this box will be reduced but there
will probably be a need for it for a long time for legacy
applications. <tt><br>
<br>
A diagram would look something like this<br>
<br>
v6 host --\ /-v4 host(with external
unique v6 address)<br>
\ local /-</tt><tt>v4 host(with
external unique v6 address)</tt><br>
<tt>v6 server--- v6 internet--router--\--v4-v6 box<br>
/ \<br>
other v6--/ \--local v6 hosts<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt>(I hope this comes through on all the mail readers without too
much
distortion.)<br>
<br>
I expect there are technical problems that will have to be addressed
but I keep reading about all the NATs, v6-v4 NAT this and v6-v4-v6
that and it must be possible to get this done. The key is that the
backbone is NOT v4, it is v6 and v4 will only exist on local nets
behind the magic gateway.<br>
<br>
Advantages are:<br>
IPV6 can start immediately<br>
IPv4 can work as long as it needs to<br>
Backbone routers will be v6 only<br>
DNS can be IPv6 only until you get to the local v4 network.<br>
We don't need a "killer" v6 app to get it going.<br>
<br>
I don't think there has ever been a successful large conversion without
backwards compatibility. When I had to start dialing the area code to
call my next door neighbor, the phones didn't stop working, When the
phone switches went digital, my analog phone still worked. The (US)
digital TV conversion didn't require that I throw out my old TV ( and
if that were two way, I could send old analog video back and people
would see it.) My Windows XP system runs (almost) all my DOS programs
and I can boot it to DOS if I need some special DOS feature. Intel has
maintained compatibility with 8086 code.<br>
<br>
Frankly, there are too many IPv4 things that will break for IPv6 to
ever become the only protocol. I think dual stack has all the problems
of both and none of the advantages of either. If something along the
lines of what I propose above doesn't happen, I don't think IPv6 will
ever take off. People will continue to NAT to the nth power until IPvX
that is backward compatible will come along. I've said it before but
I'll repeat it here. I think IPv6 is so similar to the OSI/GOSIP SNAFU
of the 1980s that it will suffer a similar fate unless the backward
compatibility problem is addressed.<br>
<br>
Cliff<br>
<br>
<br>
* as in Arthur C Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced science is
indistinguishable from magic"<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>