Brad Knowles wrote:
I was working at DISA at the height of the GOSIP stuff. I remember the internal discussions and arguments. I'm fortunate enough to have known a guy who was instrumental in helping to finally kill the damn thing.
We all have our OSI horror stories.
Should we hope that the same won't happen to IPv6?
Less likely. At least there is general consensus among pretty much everyone - with the exception of a small number of cranks - that IPv6 is good. This is not something which could have ever have been said about the ISO model, which governments loved and everyone else loathed. IPv6's major implementation problem is going to be apathy. After all, things are working fine at the moment, and who cares that some day there might be a big ip address crunch? Nick
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Nick Hilliard wrote:
At least there is general consensus among pretty much everyone - with the exception of a small number of cranks - that IPv6 is good.
Now I'm officially a crank because i fail to see why IPv6 is any better than slightly perked up IPv4 - except for the bottom line of box vendors who'll get to sell more of the new boxes doing essentially the same thing. --vadim
At least there is general consensus among pretty much everyone - with the exception of a small number of cranks - that IPv6 is good.
Now I'm officially a crank because i fail to see why IPv6 is any better than slightly perked up IPv4 - except for the bottom line of box vendors who'll get to sell more of the new boxes doing essentially the same thing.
Vadim -- You're only a crank if you don't think a slightly perked up IPV4 is a good thing. :) My justification for IPV6 being a good thing is this: 1) Is IPV4 approaching an addressing limitation? 2) Does IPV6 provide a significant buffer of new addresses (given current allocation policies) the way IPV4 did when it was new? If (1 & 2) => IPV6 is good If (1 | 2) => undefined If !(1 & 2) => who cares? I (personally) don't think IPV6 will change the way the internet operates in a significant fashion overnight. I think the vast majority of operators will just use IPV6 like funny IPV4 addresses. I think this is a good thing it says the current internet basically works. I think box vendors will always find something to sell, and they are always trying to rewrap existing features/functionality into new an exciting products -- though I think its marketing's fault, not the engineers. I am sure you will agree, network service providers do much the same thing with VPN/MPLS tunnel/mumble products. My $0.02, Deepak Jain AiNET
Well, since adding a simple option to IPv4 header would solve all address space problems w/o any need to change core routing infrastructure (unlike introduding v6) - I see little need to go for an entirely new L3 protocol. --vadim On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Deepak Jain wrote:
1) Is IPV4 approaching an addressing limitation? 2) Does IPV6 provide a significant buffer of new addresses (given current allocation policies) the way IPV4 did when it was new?
If (1 & 2) => IPV6 is good If (1 | 2) => undefined If !(1 & 2) => who cares?
Vadim Antonov wrote:
Now I'm officially a crank because i fail to see why IPv6 is any better than slightly perked up IPv4 - except for the bottom line of box vendors who'll get to sell more of the new boxes doing essentially the same thing.
Then, let's draw a distinction between the generally positive to can't-really-see-the-point attitude range which most people have towards ipv6 and the unparalleled derision and invective which the OSI camp was subjected to by large sections of the community before the final nails were hammered into its coffin. Most people do not feel that ipv6 is a bad thing which should be put out of its misery with unseemly haste, even if the same people may tend to feel apathetic about it. Nick
participants (3)
-
Deepak Jain -
Nick Hilliard -
Vadim Antonov