[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
Hi, Fleischman,
We all work hard to contribute the fast change Internet world. Althrough we may have different opinions from time to time, our ultimate goals are the same, I believe.
I will read and comment on RANGER.
Best regards,
Sheng
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:51 pm
Subject: RE: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
To: JiangSheng 66104 <shengjiang@huawei.com>
Cc: 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>
> Sheng,
>
> I'm glad that our views are congruent. I believe that our shared
> viewpoint is a reasonable one though I recognize that other
> vectors are also possible.
>
> I apologize for my previous long posting. In hindsight, I wish
> that I had solely stated that because the Internet is likely to
> face a period of accelerated change in the next few years, with
> accompanying challenges within the network operations domain, it
> behooves us to adopt techniques that will help our community
> weather these anticipated events.
>
> This is the reason why I personally have been encouraging
> coworkers to consider RANGER because I believe that it has
> preserved the original intent of the founders of the Internet in a
> manner that would enable today's Internet to flourish and evolve
> during the difficult challenges ahead.
>
> I would appreciate it if you all would please read and consider
> RANGER and the new RANGERS I-D and share your insights on those
> concepts. A strength of our community is the quality of our
> technical discussions together.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --Eric Fleischman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JiangSheng 66104 [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:48 PM
> To: Fleischman, Eric
> Cc: Gert Doering; Templin, Fred L; Rémi Després; Brian E
> Carpenter; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; guoseu@huawei.com; Russert, Steven
> W; shengjiang@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-
> incremental-cgn
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> I believe this situation is changed. IPv4 has reached its
> limitation. End-user will soon find that they could NOT obtain a
> public IPv4 address and with private IPv4 address (maybe more than
> one NAT in the way) they were only able to communicate with part
> of Internet world. ISP has met the problem that they cannot adopt
> new services due to the lack of public address.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sheng
>
>