Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6)

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:25:59 -0400

> From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>

    > We hear Sony saying all consumer networked appliances will support IPv6
    > by 2005. We hear MS talk about IPv6 for pervasive collaborative
    > communication

I wish I could get $10 for every time I heard one of these predictions. I've
got a huge stack of them, dating back to the 1990's. I think the one I liked
the best was how G3 phones were going to be the killer app for v6.

I must say, the latest pronouncement from the DoD was really amusing - it
just increased the "deja vu" level one more delicious notch. I really should
make those T-shirts I talked about...

	Noel

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:52:45 +0100

> the best was how G3 phones were going to be the killer app for v6.

Fair point.  But a year ago we didn't have Abilene, GEANT or a large number
of European NRENs offering a native IPv6 service.  Cisco and Juniper's 
support has come on in leaps and bounds, and now we do see US and European
real deployment, overlaid on the production IPv4 network, and we see dual-stack
transatlantic links.   On the coal face, we can see real progress.  

A year ago we didn't have official IPv6 support in Windows XP.  We didn't
have prototypes from Sony and Panasnic being shown publicly.   We didn't
have a pilot IPv6 deployment project from Microsoft (threedegrees).  Things 
are moving on.  Sure, we'll get hype from the marketing people, but that's 
what they're paid to produce :)  

And noone's forcing IPv6 on anybody.  If you want to keep running IPv4, with
or without NAT, feel free.

Tim

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:25:26 +0200

Tim writes:

> But a year ago we didn't have Abilene, GEANT
> or a large number of European NRENs offering
> a native IPv6 service.

A year ago, my parents weren't using IPv6, whereas today ... they still
aren't using it.  When their connection is IPv6, I'll know that it has
arrived.

The more pervasive a technology becomes, the more slowly its widespread
implementation changes, and the greater the gap between the leading edge in
that technology and the actual state of implementation in the field.

Computerland isn't the way it used to be.  A large chunk of the world uses
computers now.  Nothing happens quickly anymore.  It's getting further and
further away from the halcyon days of what was then called EDP, when things
could change overnight, and closer and closer to the worlds of automobiles
and telephones, ubiquitous technologues that change only with imperceptibly
glacial slowness.

It's entirely possible that IPv6 may _still_ be planned for "real soon now"
ten or fifteen years from today.

> On the coal face, we can see real progress.

Wait until the coal is producing power for your microwave before you
celebrate.

> If you want to keep running IPv4, with or without NAT,
> feel free.

That's exactly what people will do, until and unless they encounter a
problem with IPv4 that can only be solved by IPv6.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:02:26 -0700 (PDT)

% Tim writes:
% 
% > But a year ago we didn't have Abilene, GEANT
% > or a large number of European NRENs offering
% > a native IPv6 service.
% 
% A year ago, my parents weren't using IPv6, whereas today ... they still
% aren't using it.  When their connection is IPv6, I'll know that it has
% arrived.

	so, you expect your parents to adopt new technology before
	you do?

% > On the coal face, we can see real progress.
% Wait until the coal is producing power for your microwave before you
% celebrate.

	for many, this is true now. coal is the fuel used to
	generate much of the electrical power... unless, like
	some, they have a "Mr. Fusion"

% > If you want to keep running IPv4, with or without NAT,
% > feel free.
% 
% That's exactly what people will do, until and unless they encounter a
% problem with IPv4 that can only be solved by IPv6.

	Your sweeping generalization does not ring true. 
	
	However with a willing suspension of disbelief, this 
	might be why the DoD has decided to adopt IPv6.  
	It wants to do things that can't be done w/ IPv4.
	And the IETF should be excited that someone is actually
	considering adopting an IETF work product.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Guy T Almes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:17:20 -0400

Tim,
  Exactly right.
  Increasingly, the plumbing is there.  And, particularly (but not only) 
within the worldwide university networks, it is there with good and 
increasingly good performance.  And it's there where the current university 
student population, a community famously and occasionally infamously 
receptive to new applications, can use it.
  I am very interested in seeing whether the applications folks effectively 
take up this opportunity.
  Regards,
        -- Guy

--On Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:52:45 +0100 Tim Chown <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>> I wish I could get $10 for every time I heard one of these predictions.
>> I've got a huge stack of them, dating back to the 1990's. I think the
>> one I liked the best was how G3 phones were going to be the killer app
>> for v6.
>
> Fair point.  But a year ago we didn't have Abilene, GEANT or a large
> number of European NRENs offering a native IPv6 service.  Cisco and
> Juniper's  support has come on in leaps and bounds, and now we do see US
> and European real deployment, overlaid on the production IPv4 network,
> and we see dual-stack transatlantic links.   On the coal face, we can see
> real progress.
>
> have prototypes from Sony and Panasonic being shown publicly.   We didn't
> have a pilot IPv6 deployment project from Microsoft (threedegrees).
> Things  are moving on.  Sure, we'll get hype from the marketing people,
> but that's  what they're paid to produce :)
>
> And noone's forcing IPv6 on anybody.  If you want to keep running IPv4,
> with or without NAT, feel free.
>
> Tim

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:00:03 +0200

> with or without NAT, feel free.

I actually think the last point is important.

I run IPv6 on some of my boxes now - the only part that gives me a headache 
is when someone else is running an IPv6 service that is less reliable than 
their IPv4 service. Experience breeds confidence.
(and my ISP doesn't know or care that I'm doing it. So much for relying on 
the ISPs....)

The difference I see between GOSIP and the US DoD announcement is that 
GOSIP was an attempt to bring something into existence by buying it; the US 
DoD IPv6 announcement says that they have evaluated something that exists, 
and found it useful enough to require it to be present "everywhere".

And I find that a *huge* difference.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:24:01 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>

> ...

At the start of the GOSIP nonsense, that might have been a reasonable
charge.  By the middle, there were at least as many ISO OSI
applications as there are now IPv6 applications, and there was a
lot of real OSI traffic in Europe.  (A "lot" for that era if not
today.)  Major host vendors were supporting OSI protocols by the
end of GOSIP as well as they are now supporting IPv6.  OSI support
was a required checklist item in a lot of sales situations.

The GOSIP history shows that the recent U.S. DOD IPv6 announcement
should neither be overplayed or nor completely ignored.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]