[31107] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: When IPv6 ... if ever?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland M.J. Meyer)
Sun Sep 10 03:16:50 2000
Message-ID: <1148622BC878D411971F0060082B042C3696@hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@MHSC.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>,
batz <batsy@vapour.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:14:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Masataka Ohta
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 10:41 PM
> Batz;
> > :Are you saying that there has been some studies done on
> IPv6 that it
> > :does offer dynamic addressing, authentication and improved
> security?
> > :
> > :Where can I find it?
> >
> > I'm assuming you're being facetious.
>
> I* (including but not limited to "I" and "IPv6") are facetious,
> of course.
??? please clarify ...
> > If not, how long should we expect to have to tolerate vendor
> > hubris and bad hacks to get around depleted address space?
>
> First, vendors of IPv6 address space should seriously tell vendors of
> Internet service supply IPv6 service.
>
> Then, vendors of Internet service should seriously tell vendors of
> routers that they really supply IPv6 capable routers.
>
> And there will be a v6-capable Internet, only after which there
> will be some good reason, beyond curiosity, to deploy v6 on
> private production networks.
>
> And then, we can get around depleted address space.
This appears to be a classic chicken and egg issue. Which comes first? I
am perfectly willing to deploy private-side IPv6, if I had a reason to
do so. Without IPv6 support in the core, there seems little reason to do
so. Perhaps, IPv6 substituting for NAT'd space? I don't know if it's
even possible.
The bottom-line appears that everyone is waiting for everyone else to
twitch first, then the shoot-out starts. However, no one is all that
interested in twitching. It also appears that everyone seems to be
pointing at the legacy /8's whenever the subject of IP allocation
shortages come up (with some possible justification). IPv6 seems to be a
means of ignoring that problem and everyone knows it. The issue seems to
be whether the consensus will allow us to ignore that problem and move
on, or rat-hole on that problem while we live with IP rationing.
The real question is whom is benefiting from sustaining the current
situation?
