On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:09:39PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Anyhow, it might be an interesting topic to discuss in the appropriate venues, IETF, "What is the cost of maintaining IPv4 forever?" but it's getting a little ahead of ourselves in terms of any pressing need.
This is an interesting question.
In talking to your vendors with your checklist of capabilities a device CAN/SHOULD/MUST have, what if you no longer needed to carry 350k/512k routes of IPv4 and only needed 256k of IPv6 ?
Instead of 6pe think of 4pe with ipv6 core.
when did Cisco stop supporting DECNET? Chaosnet? why?
I've been reminding vendors that IPv6 should get new features *first* vs IPv4.
it will, when/if there are things IPv6 can do that IPv4 can't. the problem is, most folks have tied down, castrated and otherwise crippled IPv6 unique capabilities so that it would be "IPv4 with larger addresses".
The end of IPv4 is near, but that doesn't mean the end of the Internet is here. The next chapter gets a new page turned. Maybe we will determine that IPv6 needs to go the way of IPX/Decnet/AppleTalk and some new system (non-IP even) will take over the world.
you predict the end of IPv4 ... and someone will take your money unless you go out a few years.
Either way, it's an interesting time to be an edge operator that worries about CPE stuff. those that think mostly about core this is a big fat *yawn* imho. Expect application developers to face some interesting challenges. me? I'm waiting until I see the "NOW WITH IPv6" sticker on things at the store.
IPv6-ready logos exist.
- Jared