RE: Let's look at it from an IETF oldie's perspective... Re: IPv4Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Let's look at it from an IETF oldie's perspective... Re: IPv4Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

On the contrary, from the perspective of the ISPs, slamming their customers behind a NAT is a perfectly acceptable solution.

 

The oldie perspective of 'take it or leave it' is not going to work here. I have gamed the dynamics of IPv4 exhaustion quite extensively and the mere fact that there are no more IPv4 addresses left to be allocated does not provide the forcing function people imagine.

 

IPv4 is a party with a limited number of tickets. The number of tickets is much larger than the number of tickets for the superbowl but the same market dynamics apply. Folk who have tickets have no need of a bigger stadium. In fact they are perfectly OK with the situation since their ticket now has a resale value.

 

The approach this is predicated on is akin to telling superbowl fans without a ticket to

 

1) Build a stadium

2) Persuade the teams to play in the (empty) new stadium rather than the old one that is full.

 

In the real world superbowl fans buy a ticket from a scalper instead.

 

The situation is not hopeless, far from it. There are approaches to managing the transition that will work. Telling the word that IPv6 is the only game in town and expecting them to bow to this wisdom is not going to work.

 

We have to have an economic model for this transition.

 

 

 

---

From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 1:11 PM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Let's look at it from an IETF oldie's perspective... Re: IPv4Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

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.

Bob Braden




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf