[governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing

[Ian Peter]

McTim stated correctly 

>the 2 protocols were never designed to be "interoperable".

Which means that the only sensible deployment plan would be a simultaneous
switchover (something that was done in the early 1980s I believe after which
everyone said correctly "never again")

A rolling deployment over several years or decades, which is what is being
planned, accompanied by protocols never designed to be interoperable?



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 February 2008 21:32
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition -
operational issues surfacing

2008/2/20 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
>
>
>
>
> Izumi, you may find this paper interesting in this respect
>
>
>
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf
>
>
>
> Its from Randy Bush, very much an IETF stalwart and true believer

?? Perhaps you should read some of his posts on IETF/netops lists to
see if the above is still the case ;-)

 – there is
> a lot more elsewhere on this problem and various specific aspects of it,
but
> this is a good starting point.
>
>
>
> Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war
> in Iraq -  "no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part
> started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no
> support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that]
> victory will be next month" –
>
>
>
> To which I would add acute embarrassment at the failure, which leads to
> denial and coverups and all sorts of attempts to wish the problem will go
> away - rather than admitting failure, and beginning a serious attempt at a
> remedy.


There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be
"interoperable".  There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4
hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 20/02/2008
10:26
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 20/02/2008
10:26
 

____________________________________________________________
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