IPv6 Deployment

Thu May 31 01:06:12 UTC 2007

THe intention was that ipng would address the issues you quote Scott  
as raising. What could be addressed cleanly, and was addressed, was  
the number of bits in the address.

In part, I think this was due to unrealistic expectations. Security,  
as you well know, is not a network layer question, nor is it a link  
layer question, an application layer question, a transport layer  
question, or a "magic security layer wherever the right place to put  
it turns out to be" question. It is a question that is different at  
every layer, and requires some level of response at each layer. Ditto  
QoS: there is a question of ensuring each application the bandwidth,  
delay, and jitter characteristics it needs, the number of memory-to- 
memory copies between end station processes it needs, the number of  
competing windowing systems it needs (cf ssh vs TCP with large  
windows), and a list of other things.

Part of this is the denial factor. It is popular to bash IPv6 over a  
number of issues, and I, co-chair of the IPv6 Operations Working  
Group, have points on which I comment. I note that those who run  
businesses that depend on large numbers or addresses being available  
aren't asking this question any more. They may not *like* the answer,  
but the answer available to them is IPv6, and there aren't any  
others. Increasingly, they are asking me and others what they need to  
do to get on with life.

On May 30, 2007, at 5:27 PM, Fred Heutte wrote:

>
> This is more in the way of a leading question for those who are
> attending NANOG 40.
>
> I'll ask it the same way I did at NZNOG back in February --
> what problem is it that IPv6 is actually supposed to solve?
> I used to know the answer to this, but I don't now.  In 1997
> (or even years before, reading Scott Bradner's eloquent advocacy
> for it back then) it would have been: address space, security,
> extensions, QOS.  But it seems to me these have either been
> sidestepped, addressed somewhat, or the benefits have not
> overcome the costs in a clear business case sense.
>
> As I said -- my purpose in posing this is to stimulate discussion
> at Bellevue.  It was the most interesting thing talked about at
> Palmerston North, at least until the cold beer arrived.
>
> fh