Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Masataka Ohta wrote: Thomas; The other changes/benefits (simplified autoconfiguration, improved mobility, tools to help with renumbering, etc.) while important, are secondary. Huh? Compared to IPv4 equivalent, all the three features of IPv6 are unnecessarily complex without necessary functionalities. This is your opinion, not a statement of fact. IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary enhancement to IPv4, I agree with this, and suspect that much of the core IPv6 community does as well. That's a silly statement. No it isn't. Brian
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
On the other hand, some IPv6 advocates never stop beating the drums for IPv6 QoS, multi-homing, and so forth and how the Millennium will arrive with IPv6. I think the truth in both cases is not so simple as either minor enhancment or dawning of a new age. It is certainly regretful that there are some that go around touting IPv6 as the solution to all problems. But if you listen carefully to what many in the IPv6 community are saying, they are saying that IPv6 provides more addresses, and that that is *the* *main* *benefit*. The other changes/benefits (simplified autoconfiguration, improved mobility, tools to help with renumbering, etc.) while important, are secondary. IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary enhancement to IPv4, I agree with this, and suspect that much of the core IPv6 community does as well. Thomas
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Well, not really just the enlarged address space! There do exist certain other definite benefits of IPv6 like possible use of Flow Specifications in the Flow Label, decreased processing delay at routers, greater flexibility etc. This is not to say that the IPv6 is answer to all problems, but just to signify the worth of the effort of those working on it. -Rahul On the other hand, some IPv6 advocates never stop beating the drums for IPv6 QoS, multi-homing, and so forth and how the Millennium will arrive with IPv6. I think the truth in both cases is not so simple as either minor enhancment or dawning of a new age. It is certainly regretful that there are some that go around touting IPv6 as the solution to all problems. But if you listen carefully to what many in the IPv6 community are saying, they are saying that IPv6 provides more addresses, and that that is *the* *main* *benefit*. The other changes/benefits (simplified autoconfiguration, improved mobility, tools to help with renumbering, etc.) while important, are secondary. IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary enhancement to IPv4, I agree with this, and suspect that much of the core IPv6 community does as well. Thomas
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Well, not really just the enlarged address space! The enlarged address space is the *primary* benefit. While there are certainly numerous other benefits, they are arguably secondary. There do exist certain other definite benefits of IPv6 like possible use of Flow Specifications in the Flow Label, At this point in time, there is still a lack of consensus on how the Flow Label should be used. Or more specifically, there is as of yet no driving application that has led the IETF to define how the bits will be used. Thus, pointing to the Flow Label as an argument to move to IPv6 is unconvincing to most. decreased processing delay at routers, greater flexibility etc. All useful benefits. But very questionable as to whether they are significant enough *by* *themselves* to lead to adoption. That is why I consider them secondary. This is not to say that the IPv6 is answer to all problems, but just to signify the worth of the effort of those working on it. Yes indeed! A lot of folks have invested a lot of time and effort in IPv6 getting it where it is today. They deserve thanks for their efforts, and I thank them. Thomas
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
At 05:03 23/08/00, Rahul Banerjee wrote: Well, not really just the enlarged address space! There do exist certain other definite benefits of IPv6 like possible use of Flow Specifications in the Flow Label, decreased processing delay at routers, greater flexibility etc. This is not to say that the IPv6 is answer to all problems, but just to signify the worth of the effort of those working on it. I've tried really hard to avoid this debate, because it is the wrong forum and it hasn't been a particularly useful debate. The signal to noise ratio has been remarkably poor. The erroneous information quoted above is part of the frustration of the folks, like me, who aren't zealots either way and are just trying to grow The Internet. Equally erroneous information emanates regularly from certain anti-IPv6 zealots, so there are no saints here, only sinners. However, I've written code for no less than 3 IPv6 implementations, thus far, so I like to think that I'm plausibly well informed. Point by point: - Until a spec exists that explains how to actually use the Flow Label (and implement that use in Verilog or software), it is NOT a "definite benefit of IPv6". It is a *potential* *future* benefit of IPv6, but is not a "definite benefit" at present. - Other than cisco, most router vendors implement their IP forwarding in hardware, so the forwarding latency for IPv6 is really identical to that for IPv4. In the near term, many vendors have ASICs to forward IPv4 but rely on conventional CPUs and software to forward IPv6 -- in this situation IPv6 forwarding is HIGHER latency than IPv4. In the narrow case where a vendor uses software-based forwarding for both IPv4 and IPv6, it is highly implementation-dependent which, if either, is lower latency. - Greater flexibility. Too vague a claim to evaluate either way. I think it would be helpful if the advocates toned down their marketing AND if the anti-IPv6 zealots toned down their anti-marketing. Neither is helpful, IMHO. It would be useful if people on either side could have a calm discussion about reality over a meal or beverages. The last time I was present at such, the results were decidedly mixed. Sigh. Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Thomas; The other changes/benefits (simplified autoconfiguration, improved mobility, tools to help with renumbering, etc.) while important, are secondary. Huh? Compared to IPv4 equivalent, all the three features of IPv6 are unnecessarily complex without necessary functionalities. IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary enhancement to IPv4, I agree with this, and suspect that much of the core IPv6 community does as well. That's a silly statement. Committees add all the features considered by some a modest but necessary enhancement, of course. Masataka Ohta
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Date:Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:48:11 -0600 (MDT) From:Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Both IPv6 and ATM-to-the-desktop-and-replacing-IP |- require major changes to applications, hosts TCP code, and the boxes |that connect hosts. The IPv6 changes range between fairly minor and non-existant, depending upon the application (and when done, result in code that still works over IPv4). |- claim to be desert toppings AND floor waxes No, IPv6 claims only to be a (really fairly minor) enhancement of IPv4 |- suffer standards committee bloat and silliness, such as the typical | standards committee doubling of the IPv6 address from 64 to | 128 bits, the lunacy of 48 byte cells and the 54 flavors of AAL. There were reasons for the address size increase - it should allow just about anything to autoconfigure successfully - but note we already (still) have people who claim it isn't big enough. | The differences are ATM requires new hardware (everywhere), IPv6 runs just fine on ancient hardware (my main stable IPv6 node is a 486 from about a decade ago... It is stable because it is too slow to do a lot with, I also have it running on ancient Sun boxes that date from the (late) 80's). Even assuming I wanted to run ATM to my desk, I'm not sure it is possible to buy an interface card that would work for my workstation, I'm certain it wouldn't be economic. The two aren't comparable at all in terms of what they're attempting to do, or what is involved in upgrading from one to another. kre
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Both IPv6 and ATM-to-the-desktop-and-replacing-IP |- require major changes to applications, hosts TCP code, and the boxes |that connect hosts. The IPv6 changes range between fairly minor and non-existant, depending upon the application (and when done, result in code that still works over IPv4). To the extent that is true, it could also have been true of ATM. You could have had yet another address family, gethostbyname2(), and N-to-A/A-to-N for ATM that would have been just as hard or difficult for applications as as the IPv6 solution. I suspect whether the application changes for IPv6 are major or minor depends mostly on whether you're making them, and whether you have source so that you can make them. If your application never directly handles addresses, and you have inet_pton() that works (the widely distributed code is, well, imperfect even for IPv4), then the changes are not too painful. If your application or worse your protocol need to deal directly with addresses, then things get sticky. 128 bits pegs don't fit in 32 bit holes, at least not on the systems and networks I fight. |- claim to be desert toppings AND floor waxes No, IPv6 claims only to be a (really fairly minor) enhancement of IPv4 Have you seen the SNL skit? Whether IPv6 is a really fairly minor enhancement of IPv4 is as true of ATM to the desktop. The ATM mavens claimed that jacking up desktops and replacing IP with ATM would have been trivial. On the other hand, some IPv6 advocates never stop beating the drums for IPv6 QoS, multi-homing, and so forth and how the Millennium will arrive with IPv6. I think the truth in both cases is not so simple as either minor enhancment or dawning of a new age. ATM requires new hardware (everywhere), IPv6 runs just fine on ancient hardware (my main stable IPv6 node is a 486 from about a decade ago... Yes, that's a very good point. Dealing with cells at reasonable speed couldn't be done with software, although modern routers aren't doing badly with 48 byte TCP-LW/IP datagrams. The two aren't comparable at all in terms of what they're attempting to do, or what is involved in upgrading from one to another. You have a point in the hardware hassles, but not about the other half. ATM was driven mostly by telephant hopes and fears, but it also claimed some of the IPv6 wonders. IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary enhancement to IPv4, but never say that or worse, mention obvious implications of that fact in the hearing of an IPv6 adovocate or you'll feel as if it were 1985 and you'd mentioned TCP/IP within earshot of real (i.e. ISO OSI) network expert. Sean has been provactive, but some of the reactions have been comically similar to what I heard from participants in the then dominant standards committee not that many years ago. In other words, the IETF has come of age. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - claim much better QoS mechanisms IPv6 doesn't. IPv6 offers *exactly* the same QOS mechanisms as IPv4, namely IP Integrated Services and IP Differentiated Services. (There is also the flow label field in IPv6, but there are as yet no detailed specs of how it will be used and no false claims either). No false claims about IPv6 QoS? Absolutely none at all? No recent statements in this mailing list (or maybe it was end-to-end) that IPv6 QoS will be better than IPv4 Qos? No exaggerations in the trade press? Do you read the same trade rags and IETF lists I do? Counte the current applications of IP QoS in use by paying users. For that matter, count the successful large scale experiments. Recall what we have all have been saying for the last decade. Add what the trade press has been saying, based on their honest (mis)understanding of progress in the IETF, vendors and on the Internet. Are you sure complaints about false advertising would be easy to deflect? I hope and believe IP QoS will eventually be real and that the ATM stuff (including QoS) were empty promises for the IETF standard reasons, but as of today, the ATM guys have the high moral ground. standards committee doubling of the IPv6 address from 64 to 128 bits, This was very specifically to enable an adequate (64 bit) locator component and an adequate (64 bit) identifier component in the address. And this was based on experience with several datagram network architectures of the past. The only realistic alternative was variable length addresses. But since we settled this in 1994, it seems somewhat beside the point. Yes, that's the spin I recall on the doubling of the IPng address. It wasn't an entirely dishonest gloss, but that's true of everything almost every committee does. I agree that the quick double-to-128-and-push-it- out-the-door-before-the-closed-questions-get-reopened was the least bad choice. I'm thankful that the base that was doubled wasn't only 64 and that it wasn't more than doubled. I don't think having a naked emperor is bad, provided his nudism doesn't force us to delude ourselves. However, political correctness and historical revisionism in the IETF is getting awfully thick. To put it all another way, do you think IPv6 is on the schedule that was advertised 5-8 years ago, and if not, how much has it slipped? My recollection is that the advocates said "by 2000," the realists said "by 2003", and the rest of us said "by 2010 or 2015 at the earliest". Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Vern, Vernon Schryver wrote: From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - claim much better QoS mechanisms IPv6 doesn't. IPv6 offers *exactly* the same QOS mechanisms as IPv4, namely IP Integrated Services and IP Differentiated Services. (There is also the flow label field in IPv6, but there are as yet no detailed specs of how it will be used and no false claims either). No false claims about IPv6 QoS? Absolutely none at all? No recent statements in this mailing list (or maybe it was end-to-end) that IPv6 QoS will be better than IPv4 Qos? No exaggerations in the trade press? Do you read the same trade rags and IETF lists I do? When I see myths propagated in the IETF, I try to correct them unless someone else gets there first. For the trade rags it is really not worth the bother. I was referring to RFCs, which is our output. ... standards committee doubling of the IPv6 address from 64 to 128 bits, This was very specifically to enable an adequate (64 bit) locator component and an adequate (64 bit) identifier component in the address. And this was based on experience with several datagram network architectures of the past. The only realistic alternative was variable length addresses. But since we settled this in 1994, it seems somewhat beside the point. Yes, that's the spin I recall on the doubling of the IPng address. It wasn't an entirely dishonest gloss, but that's true of everything almost every committee does. I was there. I was one of the members of the IPng directorate pushing to copy the locator/identifier split, which is lacking in IPv4 and was present in other datagram address formats of the same vintage. Please don't tell me it was spin or a dishonest gloss. It was a design decision, and one I stand by with no hesitation. ... To put it all another way, do you think IPv6 is on the schedule that was advertised 5-8 years ago, and if not, how much has it slipped? Dead on schedule. I've always said it would take 15 years. Brian
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:03:03 EDT, "vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 3. the ietf general list is probably the wrong place for further extended discusssion Could we have an ICMP Redirect please? ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Michael Richardson observed: a) my service provider isn't IPv6 ready. I am doubtful that any of them will be for a long time as far as I can tell. Yes, a very long time, until at least the ambivalence in the IPv6 community towards established providers is resolved, and some large providers' and _many_ small providers' concerns are dealt with. Consider the rather nasty attitude in response to my technical deployment and utilization-scenario related questions raised here in the past 6 hours: -- likened to SPAM [Narten] -- accused of trolling [Narten] -- told to go away [Narten] -- accused of not knowing the history of CIDR [Senie] I could go on with other recent examples too, but you get the idea. On the other hand, Itojun, like many others in the IPv6 community, answered politely with useful information, and seem to be thinking about ways in which IPv6 could actually be used in practice, even with non-uniform support for native IPv6 by ISPs. I assert that one of the critical stumbling blocks to acceptance of IPv6 by *ANY* large provider is the open hostility of many of the "leaders" of the IPNG effort towards those of us in the trenches. Indeed, the whole ROAD process, and everything since has to me turned its back on people actually OPERATING the Internet as experienced resources who could help improve IPv6. Perhaps if the IPNG leadership or at least their attitudes were changed, some useful engagement may happen. Otherwise, Metzger's deployment scenario below is probably the only realistic one, because no business in its right mind would want to support a collection of people whose leaders openly accuse them of everything short of baby-killing. Sean. - - -- Sean Doran [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Working at a large ISP, incidentally) - - -- Perry Metzger in [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03 Dec 1999 19:42:10 -0500: We'll tunnel around you. You're irrelevant to deployment, anyway. [..] I gave up believing that providers would be paying close attention to the needs of customers about eight years ago [..] I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for you guys to help deploying v6 now. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBOZxBE6/czfWiyH41AQEufAP7BfU1tsMxIdDLbRGEx57Wp0QY4KLVePXW lFXt9e/IPnsZhsF4lRe2cIvUySE/Y6OkUf3S6ZJnabRda09GslmJimlI3C+o5PLF Gk3u/jaR/EuC2fD+npG9/7fnSDIHi1OpVJEcTV82Cx435HYJUa3nYNyliCnsaSS0 oyuwY22mj4o= =pxFZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Sean, ... I assert that one of the critical stumbling blocks to acceptance of IPv6 by *ANY* large provider is the open hostility of many of the "leaders" of the IPNG effort towards those of us in the trenches. I think that is an unwarranted generalisation, I really do. Let's say that we all need to think carefully about how we phrase our postings, to avoid them being misinterpreted. I would have to get too deep into personalities if I said any more. Indeed, the whole ROAD process, and everything since has to me turned its back on people actually OPERATING the Internet as experienced resources who could help improve IPv6. Well I seem to remember plenty of operational people in CIDRD, which was also part of the ROAD follow-up. But there has indeed been a lack of operational people active in the IPv6 WGs. The IPv6-related WGs are as open as every other IETF WG, so if there has been limited participation by large providers that is their choice. But that has consequences, such as a) large provider concerns have not been voiced as much as desirable in the WGs; and b) in some cases large providers appear to have incomplete or out of date ideas about how IPv6 is actually specified and implemented. [example: "when one connects to an IPv6 provider, one's border router automatically acquires a range of addresses from that provider" is untrue; it isn't automatic. I wish it was.] Now I don't blame the large providers particularly for this; they have a network to run. But in certain areas, such as multihoming, we badly need provider input - especially now. I must add one thing. Provider input has to be part of the design dialogue. It's no good if providers show up, say "you must do X", and then don't stay for the discussion of whether X works in the total picture. Life is still a compromise. Brian
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Consider the rather nasty attitude in response to my technical deployment and utilization-scenario related Sean, you knowingly and deliberately wasted people's time all week with your nonsensical suggestions (as evidenced by your first message's label "Fuel for the B Ark") ... and you now want us to believe that you're upset by being told that you're wasting our time? There are people who play the "troll" game a lot better. They practice it in various newsgroups. Occasionally they've tried to bring it to the IETF list, to nobody's satisfaction. Maybe you'd enjoy playing in their sandbox. Go, make us proud.
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providers
Date:Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:36:01 +0200 (CEST) From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm not upset at all. I am merely pointing out that there | is a major cultural rift between IPv6-Lovers, a group which | includes precious few ISPs of ANY variety, and IPv6-Haters | which interestingly is subscribed to by a large number of people | who are involved with engineering major transit backbones and | other networks, and the vendor-engineers who support them. So, what's new? Exactly the same happened with IPv4 and the backbone network providers (of the time). The network providers of the 70's and 80's didn't like IP (IPv4) at all - it challenged the way they operated, and didn't fit with their mindset. They mostly just stood aside, didn't participate, and claimed that the whole IP thing was doomed to fail, or would only ever be of interest to a few academics and others who liked to play. There's nothing different this time, the established IPv4 network providers see something that is challenging their established way or operating, and the current services they offer. Largely they're claiming that this new stuff isn't needed, they can keep on operating the way they used to, ... Just as happened with IP 10-15 years ago, people who want to use the new technology will start out partly installing their own wires, and partly just layering on top of the services provided by the old providers. As the numbers of users grows, new providers specialising in the new technology will appear, and will start to attract customers (that is already starting to happen). Rather belatedly the old providers will realise that they're missing out on market share, and that all the growth is happening in an area they chose to ignore (we're not yet at that stage). They'll attempt to jump in a hurry - and some of them will probably succeed, and manage to stay alive. As to "lovers" and "haters", IPv6 isn't really the kind of thing that should be attracting that much emotion. It certainly isn't perfect. To be perfect, the ipngwg crowd would have had to have followed all of my suggestions to the letter .. but for some bizarre reason, they didn't. Unfortunately, they didn't decide to follow all your suggestions either... | Meanwhile, the fuel caught fire beautifully when your lot | from the B Ark saw "VPN that is subscribed to on the basis | of kid-safeness" and claimed that it simply cannot be done | at all, with little to no basis for such a claim, I don't think anyone claimed a VPN couldn't be done. I certainly saw no such claim. But I think I saw some messages which seemed to be based on the assumption that a VPN was never in the minds of those who seemed to be proposing dedicating bits in addresses to whatever their favourite cause for site differentiation might be. The VPN suggestion seems to have come purely from you, and have never been relevant to anything really. kre
