RE: Backwards compatability with existing IPv6 [was: Re: Network layer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]]

[Jim.Bound@nokia.com]

The pipeline for deployment of IPv6 that account reps use is started and the
pipeline is filling up mostly in the 3GPP market who will use the products
you mention below and ones you did not mention (HP-UX and Compaq).  In
addition the 3GPP vendors have Serving GPRS Support Nodes (SGSN), Gateway
GPRS Support Nodes (GGSN), and Routers built.  Also various Mobile Terminals
have been built to support IPv6 too and even some PDAs. 3GPP product sets
will be built before this working group is done.  Also there is very few
start up vendors building next gen switches/routers that are not including
IPv6 on their ASICs or Network Processors and IPv6 on their local CPUs and
Master CPUs for those boxes.  To not believe there is installed IPv6 base is
not wise.  The pipeline in most engineering groups is also filled up doing
many parts for IPv6 (e.g. SNMP, Transition, Routing, Security) and anything
that adds to that plate will have to be pretty daunting from a business
perspective not because say its important here in the multi6 working group.
Telling them your APIs are history and change your transport layer or build
SCTP faster than can be done will not fly.  That is why it is important we
solve problems in parts and do consider this issue strongly for multihoming.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@raleigh.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday,April 06,2001 8:08 AM
> To: Masataka Ohta
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Backwards compatability with existing IPv6 [was: Re: Network
> layer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]]
> 
> 
> > Considering that there virtualy is NO install base of IPv6, we
> > can assume anything.
> 
> This is a point we'll discuss for a long time I'm sure, but I believe
> it is impractical to assume there is no installed base and thus we are
> free to do anything. The reality is that there are IPv6 products (for
> end hosts) in the pipeline (Sun Solaris-8, Windows XP, AIX, etc.)
> Getting *any* changes into end hosts will not happen until a minimum
> of 2-3 years from today (i.e., any changes need to be made into RFCs,
> and we don't have any proposals yet) and then would need to line up
> with individual vendor product plans. Note that I am not necessarily
> talking about *deployment*; I'm talking about products that include
> IPv6 support. When the time comes that people turn them on, they will
> simply turn on the version they already have. Thus, the boxes that
> ship in the next few years will have an impact.
> 
> IMO, saying "no changes are out of scope" or "no changes can be
> considered" misses the point. If/when there is a concrete proposal,
> we'll need to weigh the advantages vs. the disadvantages.
> Compatability issues with existing implementations will be one of the
> factors that will need to be weighed.
> 
> Thomas
>