Re: [RRG] Host changes & user costs of adopting map-encap addresses

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

I wrote of IPv6:

> As far as I know, no-one uses it exclusively.  

Luigi Iannone wrote:

> http://rnrt-infradio.lip6.fr/indexEnglish.html
> http://www-rp.lip6.fr/~leroux/meshdv/index.html
> 
> Pure IPv6, no IPv4 backup, and it works...... 

IPv6 works, but this system is intended only for a specific set of
users in a small geographic area - not for global accessibility of a
website, server etc. via the Internet which was what I was intending
to refer to.  Maybe there was something special about IPv6 which
provides and advantage for this project, but I didn't see it in a
cursory look at these sites.


I don't want to rehash the IPv6 debate other than to say that for
the majority of end-users, IPv6 connectivity can't replace IPv4
connectivity since they need connectivity via a wide variety of
protocols with the majority of other end-users who only have IPv4.

IPv6 (or any other alternative to IPv4) brings no direct benefits to
early adoptors unless they have a special purpose in mind which IPv6
suits better than IPv4, or unless they absolutely can't get the IPv4
address space they need.

So in terms of mass adoption of IPv6 dual-stack and of IPv6 alone,
for ordinary users who need global Internet connectivity, IPv6 or
any other alternative to IPv4 is not incrementally deployable.

A good map-encap will be incrementally deployable, fully backwards
compatible and will provide immediate benefits to end-users who
adopt it.  If we get the architecture right, we won't have to cajole
anyone into using it.

 - Robin


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg