On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Stephens, Josh <Josh.Stephens@solarwinds.com> wrote:
Not something I'd typically use this list for but I have an opportunity to host a debate of sorts on IPv6 where I'm taking a very pro IPv6 stance and I need someone who wants to argue the other side - effectively that most people don't need to worry about it for a long time still or until someone makes them.
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html Joking, but only half joking. What kind of debate? Live debate doesn't work for me; I have the answers 15 minutes later. Personally, I'm leaning IPv6, but I can tell you the arguments opposed.... * Timing means we have to do carrier NAT anyway. Why go to both expenses? * Carrier NAT buys us enough years to build an IPv4 successor that actually solves some of the intractable IPv4 problems. Deploying IPv6 as it exists today requires massive amounts of manpower yet solves none of IPv4's problems save for the larger address space. Worse, it even doesn't appear to create the opportunity to solve those problems. * High disruption risk deploying IPv6 as implemented. May be smarter to wait until we have a protocol without the design errors that make IPv6 such a high deployment risk. * Will have learned enough in an aborted IPv6 transition to do the next one with minimal disruption. Things like host and network level configuration of protocol priorities so we have a better ability to stagger the cut-over process. * IPv6 remains half-baked with key technologies like enterprise NAT missing from the products. It isn't really ready for wide deployment; it's only being driven by IPv4 address exhaustion -- which we can defer for a couple decades through carrier NAT and other address reclamation enablers. * Next protocol should really be designed to support interoperability with the old one from the bottom up. IPv6 does not, requiring expensive and indefinite dual stack. * Can solve the multihoming/mobility problems we see in v4 if we ditch TCP with the next protocol and build something with multilevel dynamic addressing at the heart. Those problems remain intractable if we don't... and for IPv6 we didn't. and so on. -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004