Right you are. We have to think ahead now to accommodate the immensely
large number of Internet users in years ahead and IPV6 could be a solution
for that. We need to make it worked and solve the technical (other ?)
problems instead of throwing the ball here and there.
Am I wrong!
Hakik.
At 08:48 AM 8/23/00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The difference between IPv6 and IPv4 is like 4 wheels versus 3 wheels. We
>need the extra address space (the 4 th wheel), no brainer. What kind of
>suspension and brakes we need for a smoother ride are the issues to be
>worked. So let us get on with it and solve the problems.
>
>Nara Kamath
>
>
>
>On Wed, 23 August 2000, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> >
> > > Sean does have a habit of asking questions that highlight the fact that
> > > IPv6 isn't ready for wide-spread production deployment.
> >
> > While I welcome Sean's input as a backbone operator, his long-running
> > disdain for IPv6 is also well known. Perhaps my previous response was
> > a bit hasty from this perspective. Saying more only invites further
> > misinterpretation.
> >
> > What this thread has made clear is that there continues to be a need
> > for more education about what IPv6 does and does not do. One of the
> > things that inhibits the overall discussion and accentuates the gulf
> > between the two communities, is folks claiming IPv6 does X (which it
> > does not do, or is an *option* rather than a *requirement*) and then
> > proceeding to begin discussion based on a faulty premise. Earlier
> > postings assuming trivial and automatic renumbering in IPv6 are one
> > example. Another is implying that IPv6 has a "new multihoming model"
> > that replaces (as opposed to supplementing) the existing models used
> > in IPv4, even in cases where the IPv4 approach would appear to work
> > fine. (It is probably worth noting that in the case of multihoming, it
> > is far from clear that the current approaches used in IPv4 will scale
> > properly, hence the reason for pursuing additional approaches in
> > IPv6). It's also worth reiterating that multihoming work in IPv6 is
> > still an on-going effort, and more input (especially from operators is
> > needed). I encourage interested persons to join the ipng mailing list
> > and participate.
> >
> > Finally, the ietf list is really not the best place to have a serious
> > technical discussion about IPv6 shortcomings. I know of IPv6 experts
> > who aren't subscribed to this list.
> >
> > > A more appropriate response might be to aggressively promote IPv4/IPv6
> > > migration at IETF meetings. You might:
> >
> > > o Coordinate an IPv6 migration help desk at the IETF that will
> > > help attendees upgrade their laptops to run IPv6,
> >
> > > o Run IPv6 (only) on the desktop machines at the IETF,
> >
> > > o Publish traffic statistics that compare the volume of IPv4
> > > versus IPv6 usage at the IETF meetings,
> >
> > > o Set an objective for when the IPv6 traffic is at least as great
> > > as IPv4 traffic at IETF meetings, and
> >
> > > o Set an objective for when IETF meetings will support only
> > > IPv6.
> >
> > Some of these suggestions have merit, and I believe that help has been
> > available at IETF meetings (though perhaps not well advertised) for
> > those that want to run IPv6. (IPv6 services have been available at
> > IETF meetings for some time -- if you have an IPv6 enabled on your
> > laptop, it just works.) On the other hand, setting an objective for
> > when IETF meetings support IPv6 only is unrealistic. IPv6 will take
> > decades to completely displace IPv4. Also, the hard issues about
> > disabling IPv4 at an IETF (which is what I interpret your suggestion
> > of IPv6-only above to be) only works when all the end sites that
> > IETFers communicate with are IPv6-enabled. We have little control over
> > that.
> >
> > Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engr. Md. Hakikur Rahman
Project Coordinator
SDNP-Bangladesh.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/hakik_2000, http://www5.50megs.com/hakik
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
