And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Mon Oct 17 21:24:08 UTC 2005

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 protocol
> transition? 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 real
> multihoming, there won't be any real IPv6 deployment. Lots of  
> (possibly
> illegitimate) IPv4 trading and NAT, but not IPv6.
>
> These aren't nice to haves. Even if it shortens the life of IPv6,  
> that is an
> acceptable 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