And our friends at the ITU are standing by ready to help us too :-) Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 08, 2010 09:47 -0400 Steve Crocker > <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, "it wasn't > > economically feasible ... and it didn't offer any > > interesting/desirable new capabilities" were mild compared to > > an even bigger defect: There simply wasn't a technically > > feasible plan on the table for co-existence and > > intercommunication of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. > > > > In addition to working our way through the IPv6 adoption and > > co-existence process, I think it would be useful to do a > > little soul-searching and ask ourselves if we're so smart, how > > come we couldn't design a next generation IP protocol and work > > out a technically viable adoption and co-existence strategy. > > The "dual stack" approach implicitly assumed everyone would > > have both an IPv6 and an IPv4 address. If everyone has both > > kinds of addresses, that implicitly asserts there's no visible > > shortage of IPv4 addresses, which is contrary to fundamental > > reason IPv6 is needed. Further, although some scenarios > > suggest IPv4 usage will start to decline steeply once IPv6 > > transport, products and services are widely available, the > > safer bet is that IPv4 networks will persist for a fairly long > > time, say 20 to 50 years. > > Steve, > > While I agree with what you say (and most of what Noel says), > hindsight is pretty easy. I even agree with your 20 to 50 year > estimate although an optimist might draw some comfort from how > quickly CLNP and CONP, TP0 and TP4 (and the rest of the OSI > machinery), Vines and Netware, etc., disappeared once the > network effects set in and the writing appeared on the wall. > > However, certainly Noel's position was part of the discussion > 15-odd years ago. Certainly the positions that IPng must > either be strictly forward compatible or that it should > introduce enough new and valuable functionality to make people > want to incur the pain were part of the discussion. > Nonetheless, the IETF community selected what is now IPv6. What > does this say about the IETF and how we make decisions? Does > that need adjusting? > > Finally, and perhaps more important right now, while it is easy > to observe that the 1995 (or 2000) predictions for IPv6 > deployment rates have not come close to being satisfied and > recriminations based on hindsight may be satisfying in some > ways, the question is what to do going forward. There are > communities out there who believe that we have managed to > "prove" that datagram networks, with packet-level routing, are a > failure at scale and that we should be going back to an > essentially connection-oriented design at the network level. > If they were to be right, then it may be that we are having > entirely the wrong discussion and maybe that we are on the wrong > road (sic) entirely. If not, then there are other focused > discussions that would be helpful. The latter discussions that > have almost started in this and related threads, but have (I > believe) gotten drowned out by the noise, personal accusations > about fault, and general finger-pointing. > > How would you propose moving forward? > > john > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf