Steven Bellovin wrote:
I do not agree. I remember discussing the concept with folks, a couple
of years before that; we agreed that NATs would be very challenging
because of the need for protocol-dependent packet inspection and
modification. Add to that an underestimate of how long it would take
before v6 was adopted, and a gross underestimate of how large the
Internet would be -- remember, IPng happened before the Web explosion --
and it was very easy to ignore the possibility of NAT, let alone the
renumbering and (questionable) firewall benefits of it. In retrospect,
sure, but in 1993-1994? It was not at all obvious.
No doubt.
Its easy to have 20/20 hindsight regarding "IPv6 failures" to become
ideally acceptable across the board. While there were warnings of
complexities, there were also clearly many market forces going on
between 1992 and 1996 that perhaps didn't allow IPv6 to be taken
seriously.
Speaking as one of the early vendors to offer fast entry ISP hosting
commercial solutions, I can tell you for sure, IPv6 was not on my
radar. The main reality was that the internet was still coming out of
the academia/federal contract only closet into the commercial arena.
Thanks to Gore's 1991 effort and eventual infamous "invention of the
internet" with the then new 1992 administration first white house
initiative to address the digital divide by bring the internet to the
mass public. Many may recall the new presidency 1994 Superhighway Summit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superhighway_Summit
Only then, did "things" begin to take off, at least when it came to
pricing, affordability and 24x7 connectivity.
I personally feel the market failures of IPv6 is partially related to
a terrible inconsistent technical "What is it, how do we migration"
considerations, masked with conflicts with new business profit model,
confusing with current IPv4 holders letting go their possession,
marketing and policy problems and also unfortunate conflict of having
to try to change direction to IPv6 when the market was not only still
trying to catch up with IPv4 solutions but also trying to integrate it
with the then current commercial solutions of the then blossoming
telecommunications industry.
A key reality back then was that 24x7 connectivity was still limited
to the BBS modem dialup hosting systems, early ISP and private
corporate environments with leased line ISDN, T1 environments,
including download only satellite feeds like Planet Connect. The
topology was still star oriented, i.e. organized with local, state,
region country routing like with Fidonet and and less peer to peer.
24x7 connectivity at all levels only became pretty mush feasibly
possible with the 1982 anti-trust breakup of Ma Bell (AT&T) and the
slow emergence of new ISP competition with lower cost entry points and
eventually new business models using fixed-fee toll charges. The
latter finally allowed the end-users, originally isolated to local
hosting services, to begin roaming the new "Wild Wild West" of the
global internet-connected world - it also wrote the writing on the
wall and began kill our horizontal market position too. :)
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://hector.wildcatblog.com