[97029] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Wed May 30 21:07:10 2007
In-Reply-To: <200705310026.l4V0QfK29429@broadway.hevanet.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:06:12 -0700
To: Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
THe intention was that ipng would address the issues you quote Scott =20
as raising. What could be addressed cleanly, and was addressed, was =20
the number of bits in the address.
In part, I think this was due to unrealistic expectations. Security, =20
as you well know, is not a network layer question, nor is it a link =20
layer question, an application layer question, a transport layer =20
question, or a "magic security layer wherever the right place to put =20
it turns out to be" question. It is a question that is different at =20
every layer, and requires some level of response at each layer. Ditto =20=
QoS: there is a question of ensuring each application the bandwidth, =20
delay, and jitter characteristics it needs, the number of memory-to-=20
memory copies between end station processes it needs, the number of =20
competing windowing systems it needs (cf ssh vs TCP with large =20
windows), and a list of other things.
Part of this is the denial factor. It is popular to bash IPv6 over a =20
number of issues, and I, co-chair of the IPv6 Operations Working =20
Group, have points on which I comment. I note that those who run =20
businesses that depend on large numbers or addresses being available =20
aren't asking this question any more. They may not *like* the answer, =20=
but the answer available to them is IPv6, and there aren't any =20
others. Increasingly, they are asking me and others what they need to =20=
do to get on with life.
On May 30, 2007, at 5:27 PM, Fred Heutte wrote:
>
> This is more in the way of a leading question for those who are
> attending NANOG 40.
>
> I'll ask it the same way I did at NZNOG back in February --
> what problem is it that IPv6 is actually supposed to solve?=0B
> I used to know the answer to this, but I don't now. In 1997
> (or even years before, reading Scott Bradner's eloquent advocacy
> for it back then) it would have been: address space, security,
> extensions, QOS. But it seems to me these have either been
> sidestepped, addressed somewhat, or the benefits have not
> overcome the costs in a clear business case sense.
>
> As I said -- my purpose in posing this is to stimulate discussion
> at Bellevue. It was the most interesting thing talked about at
> Palmerston North, at least until the cold beer arrived.
>
> fh
