Dear all,
I follow this amusing debate - I'm not reacting to this post specifically.
I would like to point out that there are people out there specifying
communication architectures for new uses of the Internet, e.g.
Cooperative Systems for communications involving vehicles. The system
running between all entities composing their network will be living in
an IPv6-only world. They will only deploy transition mechanisms to keep
communication going on with other parts of the Internet not running
IPv6, if that proportion is still significant by the time these new
systems get deployed (hopefully, they won't have to do so, and for sure
they won't deploy dual stack).
It seems to me that these new uses are always ignored when one is
debatting transition from IPv4 to IPv6. In some many cases, it is simply
transition from something not IP to IPv6. So, there will be IPv6-only
systems deployed out there (the sad news is that there are also sectors
transitioning from non IP (e.g. X25) to IPv4 - just because they are not
aware about IPv6 or are still thinking IPv6 is for the next decade).
Regards,
Thierry.
On 15/06/10 02:10, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message<AANLkTimoqnpmKcbitki07KAG9xTROYIv84RqSmo0dq84@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews<marka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only
served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry about MTA's
that don't know about MX records and no longer add A records
to accomodate them.
Why would there be any IPv6 only served zones?
Because it going to get harder and harder to get stable IPv4
addresses. ISP's are looking at moving their entire client base
from having unshared public addresses to shared public addresses.
What John and I have been trying to get across here is that there is
no incentive to create an IPv6 only zone now and never will be in the
future. You present an induction without a base case.
Except IPv6 only zones already exist so there must be some incentive to
have them.
Back in the days when Internet on phones meant WAP, there was a
possibility of them being supported on IPv6. But now the iPhone has
changed the model and the Web on a phone will look just like the rest
of the net and so they have to run IPv4.
That is the big flaw in the IPv6 ready program. It assumes that the
incentive for transition is that IPv6 is a good in itself. It is not,
in fact IPv6 will be slower (more header baggage) than IPv4 and if you
are IPv6 only you will have to go through gateways.
And IPv4 will have multiple header re-writting. DPI to "fix up" the fact
that headers have been re-written multiple times along with checksum
re-calculations etc.
I actually expect IPv6 to be faster in the end if only marginally. Most
measurements to day say that IPv4 and IPv6 are roughly the same.
We do seem to be making some progress. I have been banging on about
this problem for six years. When I started NAT was universally
considered to be the problem. People are now seeing the NAT-PT
approach as being a possible framework for a solution rather than
something to be deprecated as 'historic' because they (wrongly)
imagine true Internet is NAT-free.
The more I look at NAT-PT (NAT64/DNS64) the less I like it. Way
too many kludges especially when there is an alternative, DS-lite,
which doesn't have nearly as many problems that need to be kludged
around.
Mark
begin:vcard
fn:Thierry Ernst
n:Ernst;Thierry
org:INRIA - Project Team IMARA - LaRA JRU
tel;work:+33 1 3963 59 30
tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91
tel;cell:+33 6 76 56 25 96
url:http://www.lara.prd.fr
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf