[governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

[Karl Auerbach]

Avri Doria wrote:

> i would still like to see a real strategy for co-existence of the two 
> addressing architectures that had an actual chance of wide scale 
> deployment and success.

Ditto.

I remember when I was at Sun in the early 1990's when the idea of IPv6 
was born.

And even then people were saying - "hey, the real problem is not 
addresses but, rather, routing."  IPv6 doesn't help routing at all, in 
fact, because it doesn't share with IPv4, it adds an additional burden 
without alleviating the existing burden.

And I remember ISO/OSI and the mandates of GOSIP and MAP and TOP.  That 
entire brouhaha lasted less time than the decade+ gestation we have seen 
for IPv6 so far.

And I have yet to obtain a real answer of how I can deploy a new IPv6 
network without simultaneously having to deploy a parallel IPv4 network 
- every time I need an IPv6 block I'm going to need an IPv4 block.  All 
of those devices on store  shelves are V4 only.  And I have yet to see 
really good answers to the question of how an IPv6 client (user sitting 
at a web broswer) is going to seemlessly reach and use all of those 
IPv4-only services out there on the installed base internet.

In my mind I perceive IPv6 as a new internet that lays alongside the 
existing IPv4 internet.  It shares the physical wires, yes, but not much 
else.  Apart from IPv4 address scarcity - a problem that we have learned 
to resolve in large part through NATs, there is not a lot of pressure to 
move.

It is still my opinion that we are headed for a lumpy internet - with 
lumps of address spaces connected by application level gateways.  Such a 
lumpy internet would resemble the cellular telephone networks in that a 
few services - such as voice calls - easily and fairly transparently 
cross the boundaries.  But those boundaries will become difficult to 
traverse for new things or for user-created tools; innovation from the 
edge will be limited to occur only within a lump not across lumps.

Of course, such a lumpy internet would require a partitioned, but 
consistent set of DNS systems and root servers.  That would end the 
authority-by-grace-of-singuarity that is enjoyed by bodies such as ICANN.

And the routing problem remains, but with a lumpy network and well known 
application level gateways the routing problem becomes one of reaching 
the ALG's rather than reaching every possible end point on the total 
internet.

A lumpy internet is to many of us a prospect that is unpleasant.  But I 
have concern that it may be unavoidable or, if avoidable, will occur 
anyway as the political forces of national governments looking to their 
own drive the ip-geography of the net to conform to the physical 
geography of national and regional borders.

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
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