[59104] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Sun Jun 15 07:03:26 2003
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Vadim Antonov" <avg@kotovnik.com>,
"Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:01:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0306141825120.18956-100000@gato.kotovnik.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > 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
