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

[JiangSheng 66104 <shengjiang@huawei.com>]

Hi, Mohacsi,

I think we are talking about the same: IPv6 itself is a killer application and will be deployed globally through there will be many years for co-existing.

You mentioned deploying IPv6 is easy or with little problem. I agree.

However, the issues I meant is problems for IPv6/IPv4 mext infrastracture or call dual-stack network. It increases the complicity a lot. As Eric said, the DFZ Internet is currently unprepared for the BGP scaling problems that would arise with a mixed IPv4-IPv6 infrastructure.

Best regards,

Sheng

----- Original Message -----
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
To: JiangSheng 66104 <shengjiang@huawei.com>
Cc: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>,Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, guoseu@huawei.com, "Russert, Steven W" <steven.w.russert@boeing.com>

> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, JiangSheng 66104 wrote:
> 
> >> end users view networks as a business overhead expense and are
> >> unlikely to needlessly spend money on networking technology
> >> without a solid business motivation to do so. I went on to explain
> >> that IPng is unlikely to be deployed by us end users unless it
> >> becomes bundled with a business requirement, the most compelling
> >> of which would be a new Killer Application that demanded IPv6
> >> capabilities in order to function.
> >
> > Fully agreed. This is particularly true for IPv6 deployment in 
> last ten 
> > year - failure to find a killer application. A right business 
> model is 
> > actually more important than technology itself.
> 
> Solid business motivation - your providers wants to increase the 
> service 
> provisioning fee since they have to pay for the public IP address
> 
> Killer aplication - Internet Protocol (with version independent 
> applications)
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >> Unless this changes in the future, IPv6 will continue to not be
> >> deployed by end users despite the efforts of Apple and Microsoft
> >> and others to ease its adoption. But then, since not all ISPs
> >> support IPv6 today and the DFZ Internet is currently unprepared
> >> for the BGP scaling problems that would arise with a mixed IPv4-
> >> IPv6 infrastructure this is probably A Good Thing.
> >
> > This is a real issue which has been ignored by IPv6 community 
> for years. 
> > My guess is IPv6 community does not want to discuss this because 
> it may 
> > even more block IPv6 deployment. However, it is time for us to 
> face it 
> > and solve it or avaoid it.
> 
> 
> According to our findings in our IPv6 deployment:
> - deploying IPv6 on backbone network is easy and relatively painless
> - deploying IPv6 on access network is not obvious, but can be done 
> in 
> scalable way
> - deploying IPv6 at customers is very painful - very conservative 
> application owners are hindering of introducing IPv6 even when 
> their 
> application cannot support it....
> 
> - deploying IPv6 at home has showstoppers: no IPv6 capable CPE 
> under 100 
> USD. After introducing such a device - at least 10 years is 
> necessary to 
> the users to replace older devices.....
> 
> 
> >
> >> I personally *HOPE* that IPv6 will become deployed -- after 
> all, I
> >> spent many years helping to create it. But my experience with 
> pre-
> >> TCP/IP protocols (I used to be an SNA and BSC "expert") is that
> >> even if IPv6 becomes widely deployed, IPv4 will endure for a
> >> surprisingly long time (decades).
> >
> > Yes, it will be years. I believe the whole internet society has 
> accepted 
> > this and be prepared for a 25+ year co-existing period.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
>         	Janos Mohacsi
>