Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Actually we have done real deployments with only-IPv6 in some networks that
have a majority of IPv6 traffic already and we have been able to disable
IPv6 in the core and access, keeping private IPv4 with NAT+global IPv6
addresses in the LANs and data center, then an IPv4-to-IPv6 proxy to access
the rest of Internet, some other tricks to automatically tunnel IPv4-in-IPv6
(from the LANs to the Internet-border) in order to avoid using NAT-PT and
still being able to use ALL the rest of IPv4 applications in Internet.

So it is a real case from years, in some cases.

Regards,
Jordi




> From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
> Reply-To: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:29:16 +0200
> To: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>
> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, "Templin, Fred L"
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>, Sheng Jiang
> <shengjiang@huawei.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>,
> <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, <guoseu@huawei.com>, "Russert, Steven W"
> <steven.w.russert@boeing.com>
> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:44:30PM -0700, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
>> Your position below is very familiar to me since it was the same
>> position that the UN and world's governments took about OSI. By
>> contrast, I state that there is a strong motivation by the end user
>> to use IPv4 indefinitely until a compelling reason to migrate to
>> IPv6 arises.
> 
> As soon as a certain critical amount of networks and network traffic
> are using IPv6, maintaining IPv4 is extra cost with doubtful benefit.
> 
> This alone is a reason to abandon IPv4.
> 
> I'm not talking about "this year", but about a few years in the future.
> 
> 
>> At this current time, IPv6 is very immature and IPv6 deployments
>> have very high risk when compared to IPv4 for the end user. There
>> are only negative business reasons for deploying IPv6 at this time
>> (i.e., I can articulate many compelling business reasons to NOT
>> deploy IPv6 but the only reason to deploy it in the USA today is
>> government decree -- which didn't work for OSI and is unlikely to
>> work alone by itself for IPv6.). There are currently no technical
>> reasons for the end user to prefer or want IPv6 over IPv4.
> 
> "End users" don't want IPv4 either.  They want web, mail, skype, bittorrent.
> 
> There already are large IPv6 deployments (free.fr has active IPv6 customers
> in the order of a million users, if I remember the numbers right).  Other
> big telcos are working on rolling out IPv6 to their DSL customer base - and
> as soon as that happens, you have IPv6 users.  They wouldn't know, of course,
> but that doesn't matter.
> 
> (Of course this is a europe-centric view.  IPv6 is happening here :) ).
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> -- 
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.