On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:47 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, let me be absolutely clear: I. don't. care. whether it will work on > IPv4. It's too little, too late. We're out of address space for IPv4. I can't > number my 50 million mobile customers with IPv4, most emerging economies > can't number their entire populace out of IPv4 the way that the current > first-world countries have done, and we can't number the smart grid out of > IPv4, to say nothing about the other machine-to-machine and internet of > things applications that are poised to dramatically increase the steepness of > the routing table growth curve. I'll concede that some of the route-scale > solutions proposed here might be able to extend IPv4's useful life by > allowing for segmentation and reuse of the space, but with IPv4 exhaustion > likely happening in the next 3-6 months, they're not going to be implemented > in time. Further, for them to be better than a NAT44(4) in that regard, they > have to restore seamless end to end connectivity (and as far as you're > concerned, do it with > out application or CPE changes). > Like it or not, IPv6 (and specifically IPv6-only) is going to be a reality. > 5+ years ago it might have made sense to have a solution for IPv4, but at > this point I'd rather focus on IPv6. If we get a solution for IPv4 for little > incremental work, great, but I don't want to delay the work to force that > issue to get resolved if we have a workable solution for IPv6. > In the normative language of the draft, I view an IPv6 solution as REQUIRED, > an IPv4 solution as somewhere between DESIRED and OPTIONAL. > Hi Wes, think you are referring to my I-D and thus I feel an obligation to response. You are right, my I-D focuses on IPv4 - simply for the reason that it is what is implemented today and also after considering one requirement in the design goal which is incremental deployability. Nevertheless, the same architecture can be applied with IPv6 addresses - but how to do the transition from IPv4 and where are the incentives to move from IPv4 to IPv6 from e.g. enterprises point of view? Moving to IPv6 is a forklift upgrade, enterprises' homegrown or customized applications needs to be ported and that is very expensive. I also share your concerns about IPv4 depletion, it might be too late for hIPv4 to get deployed. But I think you will not stop to sell IPv4 based services within 3-6 months - it seems that the ISPs are forced to deploy Carrier Grade NAT solutions (unfortunately), simply because of the customer demand. The IPv4 community is very large and too large to be ignored by any service provider (carrier or content) - thus there will be no killer application for IPv6, startups will not get funding if they deploy solutions only for IPv6. The problem here is very similar as with multi-homing, once you get your solution in place it is no longer your problem - i.e. if I have an IPv4 address (or multi-homed solution) and can be part of the IPv4 community, why should I care and invest in technology that will do no good for me - especially with all the financial problems in the old economies. The question is, how much more time will CGN and e.g. LISP by us? And if time is running out, well, the architecture is basically the same - the only difference is 32x32 bit address space versus 64x64 bit address space. IMHO, it is not about IPv4 versus IPv6 or CES versus CEE. Patrick . _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
