On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Michel Py
<michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> We still need to in the long term. IPv6 PI, ie keeping state
> for all end-users in all DFZ routers on the Internet, does
> not scale with billions of routes.
We have known that for 20 years; it was part of the very design of IPv6:
small, aggregated DFZ. Unfortunately, nobody has been able to deliver
it.
Wrong. The IPv6 DFZ is small as an ISP has only 1-2 hugh IPv6 address block. IPv6 PI will destroy this structure, this is the danger.
Another undelivered feature is easy renumbering, which is why we are
starting to see all kinds of IPv6 NAT.
NAT is used also for monitoring the traffic. IPv6 without NAT is delayed because many organisation wants to monitor the traffic (for company secret keeping, for example) and these companies have no tools at the moment (these tools are under development by operation system developer, wich will allows traffic monitoring at your computer(.
Time to wake up: Even IPv4 address shortage has not triggered IPv6
adoption; no PI and no NAT are small perks compared to address shortage.
Really time to wake up!
> So yes, there is no solution right now, that doesn't mean
> IPv6 PI is any kind of long term solution.
IPv6 PI really not long term solution.
This is the wording I object. By writing this, you are saying that the
quest for the Holy Grail has not stopped and implying that we will find
it. Don't get me wrong: 10 years ago I wrote that, too. But now the game
has changed: we do not have another 20 or 50 years to deploy IPv6.
For the same reasons most have eliminated other protocols such as IPX,
Appletalk, DECNET, etc in favor of IPv4, we do not have eternity before
people start to fall back on IPv4-only networks, if IPv6 adoption
remains at the current levels and growth rate.
It's too late to talk about making IPv6 better. The only game left is
the survival of IPv6, not dreams for 50 years from now.
Fully aggree, the the only game left is the survival of the IPv6. AND fast implementation by content providers (which is still the a week point, with a few exeptions and coordinated efforts of Goggle) AND fast provision by massive home network providers.
> We know it's bad, we still use it because there is no better
> way right now. That doesn't mean we should give up.
I'm saying that not only we should give up, but we must give up.
Although they are not the main reason, never-ending changes in
deployment strategies are one of the factors that slow down adoption.
Time to finalize deployment scenario has come.
By keeping the quest for the Holy Grail open, you send the wrong message
out. The message you are sending out is that you are still looking for
ways to slow distribution of IPv6 PI addresses, and this is one of the
things that makes potential adopters run away from it and invest in CGNs
instead.
> It's again tragedy of the commons. For the individual user,
> PI is always the easiest way out. For humanity/Internet as
> a whole in the long term, not so much.
Denial to recognize the fact that organizations will always go for the
easy way out is precisely where we collectively have failed. The grand
scheme of doing what is right does not work in the real word.
It must, sorry.
However, you are right that we are facing to the social aspects of the Internet transition.
We know that the humanity must reduce the green-house effects by reducing CO2 production, we know thast fueling our cars should be drastically changed and we know that massive IPv6 deployment with smart routing table is a must.
You are still in denial that the initial design objectives have not been
met.
Social problems are everywhere, including this mailing list. No surprise.
Michel.
Thanks,
Géza