On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 9/10/2012 10:34 PM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > >> A single common internetworking layer helps reach other nodes regardless >> of their underlying technology. >> >> Current situation shows that, now we need to reach other nodes >> regardless of their underlying technology, and regardless of their IP >> version. This is what Discrete IP does. >> > > The Internet asks each new technology to support IP, and thus leverage > everyone else who already speaks IP. In that case, ONE node (the new node) > needs to be modified. > > Your proposal asks others (potentially many others) to adjust to you. The > Internet was created because that doesn't scale.
The situation changed now, we have new problems like IP version transition. In my view, we are all adjusting to China with the current proposal, and China is waiting for us. We can set up Discrete IP and solve this IP transition problem forever. > > > Not allowing different IP versions is a technology blocker. IPv6 is >> ready, some entities need it, but they cannot use it fully. >> This is because it is required that other entities also transition to >> IPv6. >> > > We already use the kind of translators you're thinking of to support > allowing IPv4 to talk to IPv6. It works, but it's cumbersome and has a lot > of opportunity for error. > > Of course. What I am saying is: Let entities do what they wish. If they find that translators do not work well, or they are now convinced that changing their core network is beneficial for them, they can remove the translators and transition to IPv6. I believe that not everybody will take the same decisions. Discrete IP can allow Continuous IP. Let everybody decide for themselves. The best technology wins. Discrete IP: 1. Can be a very good transition mechanism to worldwide IPv6 without enforcement (meaning that we have no idea what is good for others) 2. Can solve the IP transition problem forever. Everybody, including us, suffer less because we do not decide for others, we do not pretend to know the future. The IETF's problem here is choosing between: 1. Designing Discrete IP and solving this IP transition problem forever. We do not intervene in others' affairs anymore because there is Discrete IP. 2. Working on pushing everybody to IPv6 and see what happens later. Pars > That's why we try to minimize the number of IP versions - at most, to the > "preferred" one and sometimes (and hopefully briefly) a "legacy" one. > > In my opinion, there is too much "we" here. We are blocking the technology. > > They do not have to because they do not see the economical >> incentive. We clearly have a paradox here. Some entities need IPv6, >> others do not. It is also assumed that IP research is done. Someone may >> invent a totally new and wonderful concept of IP and call it IPv7. Some >> entities may use it, while others still use IPv6 and IPv4. >> >> Discrete IP solves this paradox: Everybody do what they wish. >> > > People can do that today, but in the paragraph above this one you explain > why that didn't work - in the 1960's and today. > > Joe >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
