> > For one, the economic benefit of being able to change ISPs without > internal numbering, and the consequence that the ISPs lose the > leverage of "locking in" customers to their address space. Remember > that in V6 addressing, only the low-order part of the address needs > to be enterprise-specific.
It is difficult for me to see that there is enough money here to justify a transition. > > New revenue streams MAY be possible with some of the organizations > that already have adopted V6, such as 3rd generation wireless, HDTV, > and next-generation air traffic control. The key question there is 'may'. Carriers don't just spend money just because there may be new revenue streams - they have to be pretty darn sure there will be and how much and when they will start getting it and all that. Like I said, the dotcom silliness is over. > > > > > > >> > >> For example, people talk about how wonderful ipv6 is for > >> eliminating the > >> need for NAT and how you can now give every device in the world > >> its own > > > unique address. > > Speaking as someone who was there when the decisions on V6 were made, > and continuing to be active in NAT work, this "wonderful" idea is, in > the view of the IETF, urban legend. There was NEVER an attempt to > justify V6 because it could give a static address to everything in > the world. The long address is there because it allows provider > addressing information to be decoupled from enterprise addressing > information. I realize that there are large organizations, such as > the PRC government, that look at V6 as something that can give them > unique static addresses (and it could), but that's NOT the way it was > designed to be used. Good, very good. I'm glad somebody said this. Please come to alt.certification.cisco and set the guys there straight. Dudes over there seem to love ipv6 because they apparently see some reason in giving their toaster a globally unique address. > > Aside from the addressing aspects, there are also functional changes > in the protocol. Yes, pretty much all can be done with IPv4 > extensions, but not as cleanly or as efficiently. I believe that almost everything in telecom could be done more cleanly and efficiently. The problem is that there is so much legacy infrastructure that nobody wants to throw out. One guy once said that God made the world in 7 days because he didn't have an installed base to deal with. I replied that it was more like God made the world in 7 days because he didn't have any gear on a 15-year depreciation schedule. > > >But the crucial question is how exactly do the > >> providers > > > benefit financially from all this? > > If nothing else, it gives providers the ability to get into new > accounts that previously were barred to them by the customer's > unwillingness to renumber out of provider-assigned addres space. That is, unfortunately, counteracted by providers who want to lock in accounts by forcing those accounts to renumber if they want to get another provider. So I think it's a wash. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53812&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
