On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote: >> On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >> > Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is >> > printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really. >> >> Perhaps "personal opinion", but bad advice. > > Obviously we have different opinions.
Opinion isn't the key to this. It is FACT that IPv6 is here and WILL need to be implemented. There is, in the very near future, going to be some content that WILL be reachable via IPv6 only. It may not be this year or next, but "ignore it and it will go away" is bad advice. It isn't a matter of opinion. THAT was my point. > > You make my point. IPv6 is needless complexity that doesn't solve the > real problems while focusing on a non-problem that it doesn't solve > anyway. The point is that WHEN content is reachable only via IPv6, whether via some transition mechanism or native implementation, customers WILL want it. Complexity isn't the problem. Your statement to let the customers worry with it is what I was addressing. Which "non-problem" are you referring to? Lack of currently allocatable space? The fact that there is still lots of unused (yet allocated) space really is an issue, whether you like it (or admit it) or not. And if that IS the issue you are referring to, IPv6 DOES address and fix that issue. > The only folks who would put up an IPv6-only site are a) Chinese (and > we don't really care), or b) zealots who think they are on a mission > from some diety to follow the advice of the IETF. Anyone wanting to > put up a site for the public will make it available on v4, and that is > how the transition is planned to work. > > So the average Joe who calls up and asks about how to configure > Windows Mail or what-have-you will have no need for v6. They won't > know the difference, and won't need to connect to zealot sites. So you are basing your opinions on the fact that since the content is unimportant to you, it is assumed to be unimportant to your customers? > It reminds me of the beer commercial, in reverse: Tastes worse, more > filling. Yes, it "works", but not as well as v4. Billions of dollars > of transition cost will result in negligible improvement. Collossal > waste, especially considering how they went out of their way to *not* > fix things that were really broken. In 1991, the public Internet > didn't exist yet, so it was all a little club with little concern > about massive cybercrime. But it will result in a lot of new box > sales for Cisco. Well, high horse aside, your advice to "ignore it and it will go away" seems to be nulled by this opinion that "it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco". Perhaps you don't really believe that "it will go away"? If that is the case, why would you provide that as your advised approach? As a consultant, it seems to me that our advice should be published with the best interest of our customers in mind and not our personal "beefs", which yours seems to be on this subject. -- ******************************************************************** * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * ******************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
