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/
