[governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources'

[McTim]

On Nov 11, 2007 11:50 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry for taking so long to get back on this - it's an important point
> you make.
>
> I like IPv6.  In fact this Wednesday my company is doing a technical
> seminar on the current state, and practical use of, network management
> tools in v6 networks.
>
> But I don't see the driving force to compel IPv6.  Yes, V4 addresses are
> getting scarcer.
>
> But for each of those 1000+ nets that you say are announcing v6 prefixes
> - how many are doing *only* v6 prefixes and not also announcing v4
> prefixes that lead to exactly the same computers?

a very, very few indeed, but the point of the transition plan is to
run dual stack, not v6 only.

>
> In other words, I don't see new users adopting v6 alone.

That is unlikely.

These new
> users will need to talk to the vast legacy world of v4 machines.

of course.

> Consequently users of of v6 will find it necessary to also run v4.

of course.

>
> In other words, I see two parallel paths for IPv6 to grow:
>
>     - Legacy users of IPv4 who add IPv6 capabilities.  These people will
> retain IPv4 so they can continue to talk to the existing IPv4 world.
> This will put no strain on the existing IPv4 pool.
>

this is a transition method called "dual stacking".  Probably the most
popular one.

>     - New users who chose to use IPv6.  These people will need to
> acquire IPv4 capabilities so that they can talk to the existing IPv4
> world.  These latter users will tend to require, block for block, an
> IPv4 allocation for every IPv6 allocation.

There are transition mechanisms that don't require an allocated/public
v4 address. Of course, dual stack does.

 And I suspect it would be
> unusual for sites to go public space for IPv6 but private, NAT'ed space
> for IPv4.

By 2010(ish) it will probably be fairly common.

>
> The root of the problem, as I perceive it, is that IPv6 and IPv4 create
> parallel but disjoint internets.  Connectivity between them will be via
> a relatively few application level gateways (ALGs) - email relays, web
> proxies, SIP (VoIP) proxies and call gateways, etc.
>

There are/will be many, many ways to do this, including; SIIT, NAT-PT,
SOCKS64, BIS, DSTM, Tcp-udp relay, etc.


>  From the point of view of internet governance, these interconnection
> points become internet versions of the Panama, Suez, and the Straits of
> Malacca - points through which control can be multiplied.  (Yes, people
> can deploy new ALGs between the v4 and v6 worlds, which does diminish my
> analogy somewhat.)
>

and they will, it will be quite common, I'm not worried about "points
of control".


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance