[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] RE: Is ISATAP a practical solution? IPv6 adoption
Hi Robin,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Whittle [mailto:rw@firstpr.com.au]
>Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:58 AM
>To: rrg@psg.com
>Cc: Templin, Fred L
>Subject: Re: [RRG] RE: Is ISATAP a practical solution? IPv6 adoption
>
>Hi Fred,
>
>I will respond to what you wrote about header lengths and SEAL in a
>separate thread.
>
>You wrote:
>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ipvlx-08
>>>
>>> Yet this ID hasn't been revised since May last year, its abstract
>>> doesn't mention the routing scaling problem, and I don't recall
>>> it being discussed on the RRG or RAM list.
>>
>> Are you suggesting for me to revise the IPvLX proposal?
>
>I would have thought that if the proposal was "active", that there
>would be an 8 page summary and analysis document for it, and that
>the relevant Internet draft be updated within 6 months.
>
>Since scalability is part of what you are trying to achieve (from
>the introduction):
>
> This document proposes an architectural framework for IPv6/IPv4
> coexistence known as: "IPvLX (IP with virtual Link eXtension)"
> with goals of limiting core routing table growth while supporting
> scaling to arbitrarily large numbers of end systems and restoring
> global Internet transparency. The scheme uses IPv6 for end system
> interface identification and simple network middleboxes to extend
> virtual links (VLs) across one or more IPv4 networks.
>
>I think it would be good to mention scalability in the abstract.
OK.
>>> Now, and for the foreseeable future, there is no direct reason
>>> why ordinary net users would want IPv6. Until virtually everyone
>>> has IPv6, it is impossible to imagine why ordinary users would
>>> want to relinquish their IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> IMHO, I don't envision the situation in which users would
>> relinquish their existing IPv4 addresses, i.e., even if
>> they move to IPv6.
>
>How then would your proposal help with the address scaling problem
>in the IPv4 routing system?
The idea is to check the growth of the IPv4 routing system at
its current levels - or at least reduce growth to sub-linear
rates. This means global IPv4 addresses for site-border routers,
private IPv4 addresses for site-internal routers and/or
"high-end" end systems, and IPv6 addresses for end systems
and edge networks. The IPv4 routing scaling then deals in
terms of accommodating new sites; not new end systems.
>>> Maybe humanity will be stuck inhabiting IPv4 more and more
>>> efficiently forever. Something like Positano, Italy:
>
>http://glamgal.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategor
>ized/dsc00216.jpg
>
>>> with each end-user network making the most of its little public
>>> patch of one or a few IP addresses, all crowded together.
>>>
>>> That is ugly compared to us moving to a more expansive addressing
>>> scheme - and IPv6 is the only one on offer.
>>>
>>> I suspect that if NATs and their traversal become more
>>> standardised that the "IPv4 forever" wouldn't be so disastrous
>>> and that "no other choice but IPv6" would prove to be wrong.
>>
>> IMHO, it can be a "both/and" situation as opposed to all
>> one way or the other.
>
>I suppose if some set of hosts, such as cellphones each with an IPv4
>address or an IPv6 /64, became needed in such numbers that they
>couldn't all fit on IPv4, then this would mean a large number of
>users would have native IPv6 addresses only.
>
>Then, some subset of other users (implicitly those with IPv4
>services only) would have some kind of reason to get IPv6 - for
>instance to do more direct communication with those mobile hosts
>than would be the case via whatever gateways etc. would be used
>otherwise.
>
>Then, I suppose, over time the dual stack dual IPv4/IPv6 connection
>model could spread. All this sounds really messy - everyone being
>stuck in IPv4 forever or having part of the user base migrate to
>IPv6, but most never wanting to leave IPv4 because it works fine.
I don't think dual-stack would be practical for all
low-end systems. Instead, IPv6-only in low-end systems
plus IPv6-to-IPv4 translation in edge networks might be
the best approach.
>Thanks for the link to this overview:
>
>http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/7/c/07ca1a49-050c-4928
>-a13f-67bf812d3f80/ISATAPOverview.doc
>
>The detailed technical stuff is pointed to from there:
>
>Microsoft Intra-site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol
>Deployment Guide
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=0f3a88
>68-e337-43d1-b271-b8c8702344cd&displaylang=en
>
>I won't pursue these, because I think that no solution to the IPv4
>routing scaling problem will be widely deployed if it relies in some
>way on hosts having anything to do with IPv6.
AFAICT, wide-scale deployment is already underway.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
> - 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