

<insert rant on somewhere after observable trigger point>

> Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> In fact, Michael, there is no reason someone can't do everything you
> describe with IPv4 if they are using unique address space.

Now this is the point where my annoyance level goes up with the rampant 
aversion to IPv6 I see even in a community proud of its adoption of technology.

I realise the "NA" in nanog stands for "an IP address and bandwidth rich region 
of the world", but frankly the IPv4 address policies and access levels are starting 
to get right up my nose. The premises *you* are working on simply do not hold in 
the nations where data comms is really starting to take off. Think Asia.

Have a good hard look at how IP telephony on a large scale - even in NA and Au -
 is going to have to be rolled out:
- encryption engines all over the place, with multiple encryption adds and removes
- multiple identity verification checks
- NAT and un-NAT points potentially at more than one place along the way
- firewalls and filters changed everywhere
- proprietary fixes and weird new stupid protocols migcom??
- multiple compression points when we should be looking at ways of flagging this 
in the headers and preserving type

v6 *has* IPSec, QoS and the concept of any to any built in. It's *not* a work 
around. It's how it works. We are making things much harder for ourselves 
increment by increment. We are lining ourselves up for massive amounts of 
rework in a few years time. By that time I will be getting too old to think it through 
and by that time you children who have lived all your lives in a NATted v4 world 
won't understand what it's like to stroll down the information street or meet in a 
public place or library! Maybe you already don't!

We need to stop pretending we live in a world of secured networks and build 
security back into the whole proposition! v6 gives us that opportunity.

While I'm at it I'll remind people that extranets work much more nicely when in 
uniquely numbered space. So even in the quasi private space we've stuffed up. 
Yeah sure, MPLS partly fixes this, but it still causes unwanted complexity along 
the way.

And these stupid little poxy - sorry pRoxy - home "routers" (1)  that proxy 
everything fine one day and lose their configs, or goodness knows what the next, 
and you go from six (2) home computers connected to one or none, are absolute 
rubbish!

I'm starting to think we're seriously missing out.

<end rant>

:-)

Narelle Clark
narellec@optusnet.com.au
getting in touch with her inner bofh

(1) these things are bridges and they don't even bridge properly, regardless of 
what it says on the packaging, let alone terminate PPP over whatever it claims to 
be today. Can someone tell these fools that PPP stands for 'POINT to POINT' 
protocol? Not kludge over multiple media???
(2) six home computers does not mean a business, nor high bandwidth use. It 
means a *family*. We are a multilingual (OS wise) household. They are not new 
and the computers have more Internet experience than many "techies" I see.

