On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bob Braden wrote:
Here is my understanding:
1. The shortage of IPv4 addresses will increasingly cripple the
communication effectiveness of the Internet, either directly
or indirectly through ubiqitous NATting.
2. As a replacement for IPv4, IPv6 is the only game in town. We did it.
3. Unless we want the ITU to eat our dogfood, the IETF needs to get
serious about discovering and solving the remaining technical
problems implicit in IPv6 deployment.
4. In recent years, a large fraction of IETF activity has moved from
our original and core concern, the network and transport
layers, to (more profitable?) issues at the application layer
and layer 2.5. It is time to take the network layer seriously
again.
5. The recent messages containing reasoned calls for advance planning
and coordination of an IPv6 connectathon are all important and
need to be heeded.
6. There is a social engineering as well as a technical engineering
problem here.
7. This discussion has already been useful.
What he said!
As an old multicast warrior and a long time NOC volunteer I'd point out
that we've been eating our own dog food for years. The world didn't end
and the network never melted completely ;-). All the fine folks involved
in *hard* technologies like DNSSEC, DKIM, mobility, multicast, new routing
solutions, etc. should be following this discussion with a mixture of
dread and befuddlement.
Why are we crafting new technologies and advanced solutions to Internet
architectural problems if we're unwilling to use them ourselves? I, for
one, am ready to leave all the polyhedral turnings required to add
one more frill to v4 behind and move on to the "next billion" net.
It will take v6 to get there.
http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/turnings.html
- Lucy
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf