nanog mailing list archives
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
From: Tony Li <tony.li () tony li>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:24:08 -0700
Daniel,
If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to happen again.That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocoltransition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is. We can't see into the future. However, assuming that IPv6 is the Last Protocol seems a bit short sighted. If we get 20 years out of IPv6, that will be just peachy.
I see that as a worthy goal and no, I don't see that as flawed. While we certainly cannot guarantee that v6 will be the last protocol, we should certainly be designing for it to be the best that we can possibly make it. Just how many times do you think that we will replace all implementations?
This change is simply fundamental to the way the Internet works. There is almost as much pain associated with this change as if we were to change the electric outlet voltage in every single country to a mutually incompatible standard. Can you imagine power companies making that change and then telling consumers to expect another such change in 20 years?
To not even *attempt* to avoid future all-systems changes is nothing short of negligent, IMHO.
Of course, if we can't get PI address space for enterprises and realmultihoming, there won't be any real IPv6 deployment. Lots of (possiblyillegitimate) IPv4 trading and NAT, but not IPv6.These aren't nice to haves. Even if it shortens the life of IPv6, that is anacceptable trade-off. IPv6 is not the Last Protocol.
If you do get PI space for multihoming, then by definition, it cannot be the last protocol. In fact, it will have cemented v6's lifetime as just 10 more years.
Tony
Current thread:
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news), (continued)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Daniel Golding (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Randy Bush (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Alexei Roudnev (Oct 23)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Gordon Cook (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Paul Vixie (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Marshall Eubanks (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Randy Bush (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Daniel Senie (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different Robert E . Seastrom (Oct 18)