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

[McTim]

Ian,

2008/2/26 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
> Agreed, we need to look at this as co-existence. If TCP/IP networks survive,
>  IPv4 and NATs are not going to go away via deployment of IPv6, or not for
>  some years or decades. So we need to understand very carefully what the
>  coexistence issues are and how they can be best dealt with.
>
>  Central to this are a range of immediate deployment issues. That should be
>  the focus of anyone wanting to encourage IPv6 deployment.
>
>  We also need to look carefully at what co-existence means in practice.
>
>  ARCHITECTURE
>
>  Architecturally, we have moved from
>
>  IPv4+NATS or IPv6
>
>  to
>
>  IPv4+NATS+IPv6+dual-stack (with a strong probability of IPv6 NATS as well).

+ lots of tunnels i suspect

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt

<snip>

>  This creates a series of public policy issues. Market or no market, the
>  address poor are almost certain to be largely confined to LDCs

I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and
current proposals for v4 exhaustion.  I think I have pointed out
before that in the current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia
Pacific regions will have IPv4 address space to distribute after the
US and Eu registries run out of v4 (at current allocation/assignment
rates).


 and/or those
>  least able to afford to purchase in an open market.

There is no open market yet, there may never be.

Tom Vest had some interesting insight on NANOG about this recently:

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06173.html

As the address rich
>  don't need to bother, there will be little in the way of hardware and
>  software to smooth widespread adoption. Clever solutions will arise but they
>  are likely to be based on variations of NATs, not adoption of IPv6. Either
>  way, connectivity is not good.

Have you tried to set up an IPv6 connection? It only takes a few
minutes via a tunnel broker, it's free, and there is no rocket surgery
involved.

>
>  So yes, I believe we have to accept and understand co-existence. But we also
>  have to understand that it may have social ramifications we don't understand
>  yet.
>
>  I think that we have to realize that co-existence is not pretty, which is
>  why there is a strong argument for transition.

>From my perpective, transition involves dual stack(co-existence).
I don't see why these terms mean 2 different things, one is part of
the other. I don't think you'll ever get a "flag day" transition, if
that's what you are after.

-- 
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