Eric, this is a sine qua non requirement.
With plug, play, testing and document of every appliance but also of every competing network connection I can grab (wi-fi, ISPs, cable, ISDN, satellite, etc. ). So when I a move around nothing is changed, and I know to use the my environment in hotels with the same low cost e-control panel. Linksys is good but their panel is not that good. Change ISP and look at the time you waste in calling their support to know the parameters. There should be a default address at each ISP were to load the current configuration.
This is not only true for home or business, but for cars, ships, mobile, etc. This must be protected by insurances : what if a disabled is hurt because an address was ill entered (as you know IPv6 addresses are very simple to enter and memorize), what if my hospital cannot reach an ill person control station home, what if my car ... what if somebody got injured because he used a default address on his own control pad and a unexpected appliance reacted, how can I set-up kid protections programs blocking some appliances, or dangerous equipments, etc. This will call for rules and strict address formatting. How could we have protection services checking our home situation every minute and authorized to call the Police or the firemen if there are no address format standard, warranted by law ?
I have difficulties enough in finding a plumber, I do not want to have to find an IPv6 specialist every time I buy a new PC or the IETF writes a new RFC. Let be reasonable: if IPv6 is to work we must not spend more than 5 minutes a year caring about our 1000 addresses or more. And do not tell me that domain names will help - most probably all of these addresses will have awfully long manufacturer formed named to call and maintain them for you. ... in various languages. This is not to be a joke, this must work, be documented, tested, controlled, paid, sure, secure, protected, updated, compatible, etc. etc. with lawyers suing manufacturers for millions if a 50 euro box worked wrong and created harm. So in addition you want logger, paper copy, phone alarms, etc. which will ring at the proper police station, not on the other side of the world, you want no spam and immediate call back for micro payment authentication. And all that for a corebox purchased at the super-market.
It calls for some thinking outside of the IETF. The IETF carried the small part of IPv6 deployment and delays the big part in keeping discussing it.
Harald is absolutely right:
"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. At this time, it's the users and the network builders who will decide whether we've succeeded or failed. Not us standardizers. We can do minor maintenance and "hey, we didn't mean it that way", but the best we can do for IPv6 is to point out all the stuff that is done, stable, and is NOT going to change any time soon.
"
jfc
At 21:08 22/11/2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Peter Ford <peterf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > I do vehemently agree with your last paragraph. In some sense, you are > saying that NAT is an intrinsic part of the nominal "residential > gateway" (could be expanded for soho and small/medium business).
Indeed. I think this is true. Several people on this list have tried to tell me that I don't really want the IP address space on my local net to be decoupled from the server address.
They are wrong. I want to be able to change ISPs by fixing *one* IP address in *one* place, and I want to control the mapping from global IP addresses to local ones. This desire has nothing to do with IPv4 vs. IPv6 and everything to do with wanting to be able to make only small, conservative changes in my network configuration rather than having to completely disrupt it.
Once again, I don't think my situation is unique. I only have five machines
on my net -- my desktop box, my wife's desktop box, my laptop by WiFi, an
Apple PowerMac we watch streaming video on, and the mail/web server downstairs.
For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of
IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Given this, how could
anyone wonder why NAT is popular?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf