Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

[Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>]

There is an element of fear-mongering in this discussion - that's why many
of us react poorly to the idea of IPv6. How so?

- We are running out of IPv4 space!
- We are falling behind <#insert scary group to reinforce fear of Other>!
- We are not on the technical cutting edge!

Fear is a convenient motivator when facts are lacking. I've read the above
three reasons, all of which are provable incorrect or simple fear mongering,
repeatedly. The assertions that we are falling behind the Chinese or
Japanese are weak echoes of past fears.

The market is our friend. Attempts to claim that technology trumps the
market end badly - anyone remember 2001? The market sees little value in v6
right now. The market likes NAT and multihoming, even if many of us don't.

Attempts to regulate IPv6 into use are as foolish as the use of fear-based
marketing. The gain is simply not worth the investment required.

- Daniel Golding

On 7/6/05 11:41 AM, "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath () fas harvard edu> wrote:

> You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing scalability
> or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX and
> be easier to 'sell' to the financial people.
>
> As I read the spec it makes multi-homing more difficult since you are
> expected to receive space only from your SP there will be no 'portable
> assignments' as we know them today.  If my reading of the spec is
> incorrect someone please point me in the right direction.
>
> IPv6's hex based nature is really a joy to work with IPv6 definitely fails
> the human factors part of the equation.
>
>                             Scott C. McGrath
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, David Conrad wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
> > > IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been
> > > written
> > > as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in
> > > under the
> > > accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications
> > > would
> > > not be needed.
> >
> > IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if it had solved a problem
> > that caused significant numbers of end users or large scale ISPs real
> > pain.  If IPv6 had actually addressed one or more of routing
> > scalability, multi-homing, or transparent renumbering all the hand
> > wringing about how the Asians and Europeans are going to overtake the
> > US would not occur.  Instead, IPv6 dealt with a problem that, for the
> > most part, does not immediately affect the US market but which
> > (arguably) does affect the other regions.  I guess you can, if you
> > like, blame it on the accountants...
> >
> > Rgds,
> > -drc

-- 
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group