RE: Backwards compatibility myth [Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt>]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Randy and Brian, 

I am sure the discussion of the discussion has been had before, but:
 
> > IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
> > Therefore, mathematically, there is no possible design for an IP with
> > bigger addresses that is transparently backwards compatible. We've
> > known that since at least 1992.
> 
> i guess you forget the discussion of variable length.  i hope we don't have to
> rehash it here.
> 
> decisions were made.  some were quite bad.  v6 had some real zingers.
> remember tla/nla?  no feature parity, such as dhcp (a war which has not
> finished)?  it is almost as if it was designed to fail.
> 
> randy

I think that the compatibility issue is a key reason why adoption has been difficult.

Others are: 

No compelling IPv6 only features
-> From my reading several key features were directed at IPv6 only originally, like IPsec.  Successive works to provided all non-address IPv6 features in IPv4.
-> This in part is being addressed by helpful capabilities such as DHCPv6PD (although we could kill things entirely by back porting this to IPv4 ;-)

No local use benefit
-> Ostensibly deploying IPv6 only gets you (slightly) more work. 
-> compare this to transformative technologies such as Ethernet and IPv4, which had a better price point and enabled new local capabilities, which did not rely on neighbours adopting the same protocol.

Of course, these are short-sighted analysis.

Being able to uniquely address a peer device is a key benefit which we will see drive adoption once 103.X/8 is gone.

Another key benefit is local addressability which handles organizational merges/changes/private peering with ULAs (resolves the RFC-1918 collision problem).

For a few years I have been involved in an extremely pragmatic market where people want to see the money they will save by deploying a networking technology.  What would get my customers adopting would be a compelling TCO argument.

Sincerely,

Greg Daley 
Solutions Architect
Logicalis Australia Pty Ltd
gdaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
t +61 3 8532 4042
m +61 401 772 770
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]