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

[Izumi AIZU]

If I may,

I very much agree with what Thomas wrote below, especially the need
to think of this as "co-existence", not just "transition".

Especially, as Avri points out, some of these technical and
operatoinal challenges
and homeworks require interpretation into policy/social/business actions. If
there are no such needs, I/we can go back home and sleep - let
engineers solve the
problem.

But, being a member of civil society on this list, and engaged with the policy
area of Internet for more than 15 years mostly standing on the
end-user viewpoint,
I must say IP address makes the core of Internet and its use,
application, business,
etc, and the transition or coexistence of two different IP address
systems require
good attention and observation from non-techie people but responsible
for these social
areas wheter we like it or not.

First of all, I like to see "accurate" information and reasoned
discourse. What I like
to avoid is subjective judgements without clear or proven facts. Of
course, this list
is not the place for technical details. But the benefit of this list
is, to me, people like
Thomas, Avri or Karl, some of the most knowledgeable people on the
technical side
can directly feed the information to the policy oriented people who
are also exprerts
in Internet policy area, if not technical experts.

Today, there was a first meeting of Internet Policy Study Group hosted by
MIC of Japanese government, and I was on that group. On top of the net
neutrality
and broadband competition issues, IPv4v6 issue is also identified. I
took the floor
and added that "we better consider it as coexistence, not only transition".

I just came back from APRICOT (which is still ongoing till end of this week),
and there is IPv6 hours after NANOG. IF you are interested in some technical
work, this link might be of your interest, or so I found:

http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/

best,

izumi

2008/2/27, Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>:
> > 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.  this is for some definition of success that
>  > includes the ability to connect all of the world's peoples to a single
>  > global Internet, with all that means about end to end reachability.
>  >
>  > after over a decade of IPv6 'inevitability,'  i still don't know
>  > exactly what IPv6  transition means, but if it means that there will
>  > be no more global usage of IPv4, then i don't expect this to happen in
>  > my life time (and I am expecting to live for a while yet).
>
>
> One of the oft-repeated myths that seems to continue making the rounds
>  is that IPv6 is about "transition" and that it is necessary to move
>  away from IPv4 ASAP.
>
>  Transition is a poor term, it turns out, because people associate the
>  term transition with "must stop using IPv4" and that raises all sorts
>  of alarm bells (and rightly so).
>
>  It has been an assumption from the very beginning that there would be
>  a very long coexistance period where IPv4 and IPv6 would both be in
>  use. Many years. Decades more likely. This is not new thinking. It is
>  not some recent realization that wasn't thought about from the
>  beginning. (Though it is true that people have argued forever just how
>  long a coexistance period would be.)
>
>  I can imagine data centers and other parts of an enterprise
>  effectively NEVER turning off IPv4. Why should they? It would only
>  make sense to turn off IPv4 if it is no longer working or
>  necessary. Think about legacy apps and cobol. They still exist. :-)
>  You don't change things that are working unless you have a compelling
>  reason to.  The same will be the case with IPv4 deployments.
>
>
>  > this is for some definition of success that includes the ability to
>  > connect all of the world's peoples to a single global Internet, with
>  > all that means about end to end reachability.
>
>
> The reality is that we don't have that today with IPv4. We have a
>  world in which some parts of the internet reach some other parts of
>  the world, that is, where the set of destinations I can reach may be
>  very different than the set of destinations you can reach. This has to
>  do with routing and how the routing infrastructure actually works as a
>  business (e.g., due to policy considerations, there may be no route to
>  me (or you) in some parts of the Internet). It also has to do with the
>  widespread use of NATs/Firewalls, where many machines do not have
>  direct connectivity to other machines.
>
>  So, I don't think its entirely useful to talk about "a single global
>  Internet" except at a very high level. Having IPv6 and IPv4 coexist
>  will add strains to this (e.g., one particular IPv4 device might not
>  be able to communicate with another particular IPv6 device). But the
>  reasons for this will be varied and may be just fine. E.g., consider
>  email. Email works today because mail is relayed from one part of the
>  Internet to another, allowing sites that are not really directly
>  connected to communicate. This sort of thing will also work for
>  IPv4/IPv6. E.g., an IPv6-only site can relay mail to gateway that does
>  dual stack, which in turns relays to IPv4 destinations. This is
>  already done today, and will surely also happen in an IPv4/IPv6 world.
>
>  My point here is that having IPv4 and IPv6 does add some complications
>  to the ideal of a single global internet, but it's not a black and
>  white kind of thing. We don't even have such an internet today (if one
>  looks closely), though most people don't notice.
>
>  And when you think of IPv6 deployment, think "coexistance". IPv4 will
>  not go away anytime soon. Or even within our lifetimes, most
>  likely. That is perfectly OK.
>
>
>  Thomas
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  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
>
>


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
           Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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