RE: IPv6 push doesn't have much pull in U.S
:) True, but, there's actually another angle to consider. If there is pressure to adopt IPv6 rapidly in a given region, and that given region also happens to drive broadband technology evolution, and North America ends up being dependent on cheap equipment primarily driven by overseas standards.. It is conceivable that North America will have a substantial economic argument for adopting IPv6 on the trailing edge, maybe just past the leading edge if you have additional factors playing into the decision. Or one may just be oblivious to the emergence of IPv6 like it has been to up to this point, and sustain that without any harm whatsoever. The key questions are When will who you want to talk to speak IPv6? When will we have a need (and be willing to pay for) addressing every device individually and directly without intermediary? When will we have a need (and be willing to pay for) pervasive crypto & "identity"? Each person/carrier/user/whatever will answer these differently, and it has a lot to do with how you work, who you do business with, and what economic pressures may apply, and whether or not you can cope with an intermediary or non-native setup. There is no globally correct answer. Or that's at least my view. Flame away. Thanks, Christian
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:33 AM To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 push doesn't have much pull in U.S
On 16-jul-2005, at 1:57, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Someone's been listening:
Listening to what, exactly? Still nonsense about address space distribution.
And I'm sure Sprint and Verio (MCI/Worldcom/UUNET too? I have a tunnel from them in the Netherlands, not sure what they do in the US) are happy to hear that they're not "major U.S. service provider[s]" since none of those offers IPv6, right?
Also, I mostly disagree with their conclusion:
Currently only a handful of U.S. technologists need to worry about IPv6--those that work in the federal government, carriers, researchers and networking vendors. If you're not in one of those categories, the IPv6 bug won't reach you for years to come.
Software vendors need to look at IPv6. The OS and router vendors have their stuff in place. The networks will follow when the time is right, but none of it means anything if applications can't work over IPv6.
I'm not saying everyone has to love IPv6, but please get those pesky facts straight...
***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 162
On 18-jul-2005, at 18:31, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
If there is pressure to adopt IPv6 rapidly in a given region, and that given region also happens to drive broadband technology evolution, and North America ends up being dependent on cheap equipment primarily driven by overseas standards..
I don't see this. For instance, the need for non-ASCII characters in (for instance) Asian languages has pushed Unicode. Modern systems in NA are all capable of using Unicode. But do users in NA actually _use_ Unicode? ASCII works fine for them 99% of the time. Same thing with IPv6. Windows and MacOS have had IPv6 on board for years. Doesn't mean people use it.
The key questions are
When will who you want to talk to speak IPv6?
That's a key question when you've made up your mind to be one of the last to adopt IPv6. The real key question is: when will it start to make sense to use IPv6 for my own stuff, regardless of what the rest of the world does? In an enterprise environment the ease of never again having to think about how many hosts are going to end up in the same subnet alone may be quite compelling. But it only makes sense when you can turn off IPv4 in most of the network and proxy or translate communications to the outside.
participants (2)
-
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Kuhtz, Christian