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

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 10:57:26PM +0530,
 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote 
 a message of 316 lines which said:

> BTW the view you say you have on the problems of ip6 transition that
> " The "problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5
> to 10 years)" is not shared by many others who are quite
> knowledgeable.

Indeed. It is pure propaganda and such marketing-talk was already very
costly for IPv6 (many professionnals now see IPv6 with great suspicion
since it has been vastly oversold).

Instead of just stating the truth (we are running out of IPv4
addresses, hacks like the NAT are very costly both for the application
developers, who must implement workarounds like STUN and TURN, and for
the users, who are now relegated to a "client-only" role), some IPv6
proponents have tried to sell IPv6 by pretending that some things
(like IPsec) were only possible with IPv6. Unfortunately for the
Internet, it backfired and now many IT managers throw the IPv6 baby
with the marketing bath water :-(

For those who are interested in what makes a protocol a success or
not, the IAB is currently working on a future RFC named "What Makes
For a Successful Protocol?" (available at
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-success>). A good start
on this difficult question with several case studies (although the
most painful for the IETF such as IPv4 vs. IPv6 or Diameter vs. Radius
or SNMPv1 vs. SNMPv3 are not discussed).

____________________________________________________________
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