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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

The two technical points to address are:

- we will want to get IPv6 all the way to the end users
- what is the operator's cost for maintaing both IPv4
  and IPv6

VET (vis-à-vis RANGER) is all about getting IPv6 all the
way to the end users. When operators deploy IPv6 border
gateways in their networks, and when customers convert
their CPE devices to IPv6, the IPv6 service will reach
all the way in to the end users.

The operator can get its network up to IPv6 by deploying
only a few IPv6-capable border gateways and leave the
rest of its IPv4 network intact. This would be no different
than having the operator deploy a few extra servers.
Indeed, there would actually be a large cost with no
clear benefits for the operator to decommission its
already existing IPv4 deployment.

VET/ISATAP is a deploy-once-and-be-done solution.

VET/ISATAP/6rd would be too, albeit with an IPv6
prefix that exposes the end user's IPv4 address
(which may be private) to the outside world.

VET/ISATAP/SEAL would further solve the problem
of ICMP filtering and assure a robust path MTU to
the end user.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:29 PM
> To: Fleischman, Eric
> Cc: Gert Doering; Templin, Fred L; Rémi Després; Sheng Jiang; Brian E Carpenter; v6ops@ops.ietf.org;
> guoseu@huawei.com; Russert, Steven W
> 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