Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Mon Mar 6 06:25:15 UTC 2006


I disagree with your understanding of the "limited deployment ...".

There is much more commercial deployment and traffic that what you realize.
Because some ISPs didn't deployed yet IPv6 doesn't meant is a failure. The
deployment of any new protocol take time, and actually I will say that IPv6
has taken the right time to ensure a smooth transition. Precisely because
that, most people is not noticing that some applications are already using
IPv6, and we will see this much more in the next 12-18 months or so. So yes,
is happening, and is a success.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at cisco.com>
> Responder a: <owner-nanog at merit.edu>
> Fecha: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:19:46 -0800
> Para: <nanog at nanog.org>
> Asunto: Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG)
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> Far from it, but, there are lessons to be
>> learned that are applicable to the internet, and, separating the
>> end system identifier from the routing function is one we still seem
>> determined to avoid for reasons passing my understanding.
> 
> And this is the real answer, of course.
> 
> There were two fundamental design decisions made back in the Olden
> Days which continue to exert a strong and in many cases quite
> negative sway over this entire set of inter-related issues:
> 
> 1. Utilizing the endpoint identifier in the routing function, as
> Vince Fuller and you (among others) have stated, and
> 
> 2. The ships-in-the-night nature of the TCP/IP protocol stack.
> This latter design decision is a big part of the reason TCP/IP
> has been so successful to date; however, we find more and
> more kludgey, brittle hacks to try and provide some sort
> of linkages for purposes of enforcing policy, etc.  The
> irony is that these attempts largely stem from the unforeseen
> side-effects of #1, and also contribute to a reinforcing
> feedback loop which further locks us into #1.
> 
> Given the manifold difficulties we're facing today as a result of
> these two design decisions (#2 is a 'hidden' reason behind untold
> amounts of capex and opex being spent in frustratingly nonproductive
> ways), perhaps it is time to consider declaring the 'Limited-
> Deployment IPv6 Proof-of-Concept Experiment' to be a success, take
> the lessons learned (there are a lot more unresolved and potentially
> problematic issues than those mentioned in this thread) into account
> and get started on IPv8.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice
> 
>       Everything has been said.  But nobody listens.
> 
>                     -- Roger Shattuck
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.






More information about the NANOG mailing list