[RRG] Re: We can't bet the Internet on the imminent adoption of IPv6

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

Hi Brian,

I am glad we agree on this:

> Who said we were making such a bet?
> 
>>   We should agree that the RRG solution needs to work for both
>>   IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> Who is disagreeing with that statement?
> 
> But we shouldn't, IMHO, waste RRG time on analysing IPv6 deployment
> issues. That discussion is ongoing, elsewhere.

I wrote this because Tony wrote:

  RE: [RRG] RE: What do we have consensus on?
  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01326.html

   > Thus, I feel that the real overriding requirement is that we
   > have a solution applicable to v6.

This was in the context of him stating he didn't want to IPv4 to be
used as a proving ground:

   > However, IMHO, it is inappropriate to use IPv4 as a proving
   > ground.  We cannot reasonably ask the entire world to change
   > routing architectures *as an experiment*.  We need to perform
   > experiments to be sure, and they may be done on v4, but by the
   > time that we reach the scale of the entire network, we should
   > be extremely certain of the outcome.

but it still made me think that he considers an IPv6 solution to be
the "main game".

Also, Randall argued extensively that it would be feasible and
desirable to have IPv6-only end-users - and therefore, I understand,
rely on migration from IPv4 to IPv4 rather than solving the IPv4
routing scaling problem directly.  As far as I can see, his claims
that it would be practical to support such end-users with proxies,
ALGs etc. to the IPv4 Internet have not been substantiated.

  - 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