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

[Parminder]

Thanks Stephane. That was helpful.

I know I may be testing your patience, but can I still seek some further
clarifications. 

> No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks
> (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web
> browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not
> applications.

I understand that every discipline has its terms with clear associated
meanings which shd normally not be messed with. I am just using this term
'application' loosely to understand the basic issue(s) I raised, and before
me Izumi and Bertrand raised. 
 
With protocols I understand a logical category, a set of rules. I was trying
to use the term 'application' for a working Internet system employing these
protocols or rules.  I could not think of any other term to describe it. You
say " But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent
> by another host, but also to write to it." Here you seem to have gone
beyond a set of rules, but are speaking of a working system, right. Who
reads, and who writes....I meant to speak about this working system, and I
felt odd to call a working system as a protocol (though it works employing a
protocol), though I may be wrong. I spoke of the whole working network
itself as a giant application merely to understand what compatibility with a
new system with a different protocol may mean. So, pl excuse my excursion.
It is entirely a temporary construction to try and understand a phenomenon,
which to me is still not understandable. 

> Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very
> different from applications. When you say that an application is
> "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data
> files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent
> by another host, but also to write to it.

To take the example of the most famous or infamous software, Microsoft OS
and office suites, they both read old data files (of older versions) as well
are able to write to them..... so, I really didn't understand how it is a
different with a 'protocol'.  

> > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it
> > in manner that it is not backward compatible.
> 
> Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP
> address to every human being) to 2^128

I know the basic logic of moving to ipv6. My question was different - what
gain was obtained in making this protocol 'in a manner that' did not make it
seamless backward compatible. Or was that the only possibility. 

> > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility,
> > or non-seamless-compatibility.
> 
> Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we
> sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity).

Again, I understand the gains (or inversely, losses). Do you mean to say
that the only way to make these gains - move to a bigger address space and
other benefits - was to make a non-seamlessly-backward-compatible protocol.
That is my question. 

> Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the
> compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but
> that's all).

Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible?
Was it a mistake on part of the technical community doing this work? Would
they have done differently if they were politically differently inclined,
meaning had different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/
constraints (I know that this is the tough question, but a very important
one. Connects the technical domain to the socio-political)

Sorry for asking so many questions. Hope I am not getting on the nerves of
all the technical experts here. Thanks

Parminder  




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:44 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format
> 
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:51PM +0530,
>  Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote
>  a message of 102 lines which said:
> 
> > (1) I understand v6 and v4 as applications on which Internet runs.
> 
> No. The word "application" has a very different meaning in networks
> (an application is something that the user sees, for instance a Web
> browser or an IM client). IPv4 and IPv6 are network protocols, not
> applications.
> 
> > We know of numerous applications where upgrades keep hitting us by
> > the day. But almost always they are backward compatible. What is so
> > unique about this set of applications that such compatibility was
> > not possible?
> 
> Well, I do not really know what to say. Network protocols are very
> different from applications. When you say that an application is
> "backward compatible", you probably mean it can read its old data
> files. But, for a protocol, you need not only to read the packets sent
> by another host, but also to write to it.
> 
> > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it
> > in manner that it is not backward compatible.
> 
> Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP
> address to every human being) to 2^128.
> 
> > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility,
> > or non-seamless-compatibility.
> 
> Thomas Narten explained very well the gains (or, rather, the losses we
> sustain every day because of the IPv4 address scarcity).
> 
> Remember there never was an alternate proposal, keeping the
> compatibility (there have been some back-of-the-enveloppe thoughts but
> that's all).
> 
> > who evaluated it,
> 
> IETF. In one way, every Internet actor who decides to support IPv6 or
> not does its own evaluation.
> 
> > and what were the principal criteria/ objectives/ values being
> > followed for this evaluation?
> 
> The main objective was to restore the end-to-end model, the very model
> that allows new applications to be developed.
> 
> > So from a socio-political point of view it is important to know if
> > v6 contributes to further moving of the Internet towards a
> > commercial applications (controlled by big IT companies)centered
> > Internet from a more open end-to-end common IP based one.
> 
> I hope so but be careful: the evolution of the Internet
> (corporation-controlled or open) depends mostly on socio-political
> factors, not on technical ones. IPv6 helps to keep an open model but
> that's all.


____________________________________________________________
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