Subject: RE: How the IPnG effort was started

From: "Peter Ford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:12:34 -0800

Noel,

I especially like the proof by emphaticus assertionus: " It's pretty
clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal -
which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4."

Reminds me of the discussion between two dinosaurs back in the Jurassic:
"well, it is now apparent we are not going to get to the point where we
have binocular vision".

I think there are at least two possible scenarios:

1) a bunch of kids in college write cool software and document how they
do it, and band together with other interested parties to form a
consortium of people who build stuff that uses IPv4 as a bearer and run
their own protocols on top of it (e.g. IPNNG ).  Over time, people
recognize there may be economic gain in deploying IPNNG networks.

2) Some of the incumbents think about (1) and do the same.   They do it
with the two largest constituencies of data networking in the next 5
years (PCs in homes and cellphones).   They may have actually started
the development of same several/many years ago.  They might actually
think about using IPv6 in place of IPNNG because they are lazier than
bright college kids with time on their hands :-).

IPv6 is already taking off, and IPv6 will even more  once it is clear to
all that IPv6 deployment is not gated by ISPs deploying IPv6.   A core
problem in the IETF is that its major source of people is down in the
"ISP space".   ISPs don't need IPv6.  It is the end system folks that
need IPv6, and they KNOW they need it, and are acting accordingly.  

The really good news is that IPv6 CAN be deployed without the networks
changing.     The ISPs can "catch up" when 1) they need to and/or 2)
when they want to for the purpose of capturing economic gains.

In terms of the concerns of dual stacking: if you were a cell phone guy,
would you put IPv4 on your phones?  I think not.  

Regards, peterf

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:17 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started

    > From: Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]

    > In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted
    > within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be. It appears
    > that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6.

Ah, you need to adjust your clock, or calendar, or whatever. SIP (what
we
now call IPv6) was created in 1992 (it was presented to the ANTF meeting
in August '92), and was adopted as IPng at the 30th IETF in Toronto, in
July 1994. That's already more than 10 years.

Just to give everyone a sense of what that really means, here are some
things to jog our memories. In 1994:

- The WWW had about 2,700 sites, total.
- The current Microsoft operating system was Windows 3.1

Think about that for a minute.

It's pretty clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated
goal - which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4. Even many IPv6 proponents
are now speaking of an essentially indefinite period of co-existence.
Which essentially voids the original basic argument *for* IPv6...

And don't give me any of that "oh, we really needed to have the X system
available, now we've got that it'll really take off next year". We've
been hearing this exact excuse for years - I have a whole file full of
them.

Yes, there is going to be some deployment of IPv6. (With the amount of
money that's been spent on it, it'd be totally astonishing if there
*weren't*. If I were a barn manufacturer, and had the kind of budget
that's been spent on IPv6, half the airline passengers today would be
flying around on jet-propelled barn doors.) It will see some use in
discrete areas of the network, particular networks that utilize IPv6. 

It may even find a certain amount of utility as an end-end naming layer
(which is incredibly ironic, but that deserves a rant in itself); but
again, that not the original goal - which was to be the ubiquitous
packet
layer.

Look, I really do understand Brian's point - that the current situation
is not good.

But acting like IPv6 is going to magically save us - when we have year
after
year after year after year of actual experience that is telling us "no,
it
isn't" - is not the way to fundamentally improve the situation.

The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's
really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.

To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process),
if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on
your
face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make
lemonade.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:35:24 -0800 (PST)

And band of kids playing TUBAs

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Jeff Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:40:01 -0500

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter,

Neither of us has the required data to back this up but my impression
of the IETF attendance in the last 5+ years has been largely hardware/
software vendors, followed at a distance by service providers, 
researchers
and curiosity seekers.  If you count only those who participate, the 
number
of vendors and perhaps researchers would far outweigh service providers.
As such, v6 isn't really seen by the service provider as 'my fight'.  
(To
take an even more cynical view, v6 is often deployed as a reaction to
IPv4 as a 'North American' phenomenon (rightly or wrongly and forgive
me in advance)).

I agree that NA ISP's don't 'need' to deploy v6.  I agree that they 
have no
short term economic reason to do so.  In fact, as many of them are 
fighting
to stay alive they have very good reasons not to deploy v6.   To 
reference
an earlier analogy, just as there were very good reasons not to toss a
bunch of perfectly good class 5 line cards in the hopper and replace 
them
with ISDN cards despite all good intentions of standards bodies and
vendors...  The difference being that ISDN had nothing to do with an
inadequate numbering plan for the future.

While it is certainly possible to deploy v6 without ISP's, 'the 
universal
deployment of IPv6' will not happen without them.  It won't even be a
smooth deployment of IPv6, it will be ugly and it will take a long time.
With regard to dual stacks, I think that this is the best that we can 
hope
for (and the only path that will lead to universal deployment of IPv6).
If I cared about this subject (I do) I would be lobbying in this 
direction
with my friends in ISP's and content providers.

It isn't that hard, you and I used to work for an ISP that deployed
a dual stack, albeit OSI and IP, internet.  (yes, and I liked TUBA too).

jy

> face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBnS8AtzMIqcCTiFQRAh8nAKCFm8s9fVg0yIKcMybHXpgZqMJLHQCdHmMY
/dEBCaI/JVQgxyiP695QZJE=
=pvlN
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:10:35 -0600

I apologize in advance for feeding this thread, but the conversation 
seems to be diverging from what I thought we had actually been 
previously...

IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of "PCs in homes and 
cell phones". I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers 
in the United States went to IPv4 instead of IPv6, but they did. I can 
say I was honestly dismayed to learn (in the past year) that the 
Push-to-talk Over Cellular (PoC) 1.0 specifications (*) changed the 
3GPP IMS specifications (that required IPv6) to use IPv4 instead. But 
that's what's been happening lately.

I'm not nearly as interested in forecasting the future as some of you 
guys, but it seems like we do have to recognize that deployment of 
IPv6 in either residential access or cell phones would reverse some 
pretty recent trends. Trends do reverse, but I haven't seen a 
deceleration point yet, much less a "tipping point" in these networks.

Sorry!

Spencer

(*) Available from a variety of places, including 
http://www.ericsson.com/mobilityworld/sub/open/technologies/ims_poc/docs/poc_relase_1_0_spec

From: "Peter Ford" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:12 PM
I think there are at least two possible scenarios:

1) a bunch of kids in college write cool software and document how 
they
do it, and band together with other interested parties to form a
consortium of people who build stuff that uses IPv4 as a bearer and 
run
their own protocols on top of it (e.g. IPNNG ).  Over time, people
recognize there may be economic gain in deploying IPNNG networks.

2) Some of the incumbents think about (1) and do the same.   They do 
it

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:20:17 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I apologize in advance for feeding this thread

ditto

> 
> IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of "PCs in homes and cell 
> phones". I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers in the 
> United States went to IPv4 instead of IPv6, but they did. I can say I 
> was honestly dismayed to learn (in the past year) that the Push-to-talk 
> Over Cellular (PoC) 1.0 specifications (*) changed the 3GPP IMS 
> specifications (that required IPv6) to use IPv4 instead. But that's 
> what's been happening lately.

But this has also happened lately; not everybody is so short-sighted:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp

    Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:49:47 +0000

> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp

Since you cite Nokia, it's interesting that on the Communicator 9500 you
can run a regular voice call or you could use VoIP on the WLAN interface
of the phone, over IPv4 or IPv6.  It will be interesting to see what VoIP
clients come available on SymbianOS for that device.

We have a growing trend for people travelling to run VoIP to their "home"
Asterix server to make local UK calls while for example in the USA.  (The
dedicated VoIP WLAN handsets are also getting very cheap now :)

Tim