On 11/6/2004 3:53 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > In IPv6, I see our job as standardizers to make sure the thing we have > defined is well-defined enough to let it work, and then get the hell > out of the way. Pardon me for saying so, but I think that represents the canonical problem with v6 deployment and some other large-scale efforts; there hasn't been enough solid leadership promoting the agenda. By way of analogy, the I* collection of bodies is really good at things like facilitating discussion about the kinds of laws that we all want to live under, but they are lousy at doing things like building the interstate highway that actually lifts the system upwards. Usually this is good, because usually there are vendors out there that will do the build-up work, and we can let the market take its own path. But in the case of IPv6, there is a real dearth of products to choose from (especially in the SOHO space), and there is a real lack of availability from ISPs. It's not just impractical for SOHO networks to deploy IPv6, it is almost foolish to even try given the lack of availability. The right fix here is to make IPv6 deployment easier. I think the RIRs are falling down here -- everytime a request for a /24 IPv4 block is rejected, the letter should be accompanied with an offer for a /24 IPv6 block, for example. Similarly, vendors need to be met with and encouraged to "take one for the team" so to speak, and sink R&D money into products. Both of those are areas where the I* has not done well, and where comments like Harald's above make success less likely. Like I said, such a position is usually okay, but in this case it's not the appropriate tact. We're going to see another multicast here if we don't do this kind of work. Then we'll see another "spam problem", where the shortcomings eventually do bite us in the collective butt because we've shown no leadership until it was too late. There is still some technical work that needs done, too. NATs exist because (1) address space is difficult to get but also because of routing table limitations. If BGP can't handle millions of IPv4 /24 blocks, why will millions of IPv6 blocks work better? What do you mean it won't? -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf