AW: [governance] IPv4 - IPv6 incompatiblity (was Re: Towards Singapore)

Fri Jun 17 03:43:32 EDT 2011

Thanks Paul for the clear language. To struggle with your own success is not the worst thing indeed. BTW, does somebody remember Y2K?

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Paul Wilson
Gesendet: Fr 17.06.2011 08:44
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] IPv4 - IPv6 incompatiblity (was Re: Towards Singapore)

Norbert, Izumi, all,

Unfortunately, this "backwards compatibility" issue has been widely
misunderstood and misrepresented.  Personally, I'm tired of dealing with
journalists who have been told that v4 and v6 are like "oil and water" and
don't mix, and who ask if IPv6 users need to buy different services,
different cables, different equipment, different email address, etc etc to
stay online.  It takes quite some explaining to undo that bundle of
misconceptions!

Yes, at one level v4 and v6 are incompatible, naturally, because they are
Different Protocols; but above and below the IP protocol level, they are
perfectly "compatible" - they run side by side on the same wires, through
the same equipment, and on the same services as each other; and they
support the same applications, which work in the same way, to the extent
that users don't even need to know.

I've promoted an analogy between the v4-v6 transition and the transition
from oil to electricity in our transport system.  And it works for this
discussion as well:  you don't try to plug your volkswagon beetle into the
mains - because oil and electrons certainly don't mix - but that old car is
still perfectly "compatible" with the latest electric one: it drives on the
same roads, uses the same rules and the same controls; and carries the same
passengers in the same way.

As for "backward compatibility" I suggest to be careful what you ask for
here, because that is always a temporary benefit, and often a long-term
curse. MS Windows users have suffered vast costs and complexities for many
years, just so that a few MS-DOS applications could keep running; and then
there's the old  QWERTY keyboard.

On the other hand, we might remember the complaints surrounding Apple's
change to OSX, a completely new and incompatible operating system (well,
being based on Unix, a completely OLD operating system).  But does anyone
care about that any more?  No, it's been properly forgotten, just as IPv4
will be when the big transition is done.

I admit to blissful ignorance of the blow-by-blow disputes and politics of
the development of IPNG in its various early flavours; and I don't care
much to go back there.  But I can certainly imagine that if IPv6 were
shackled with tricks to have it interconnect directly with IPv4, at the IP
level, then in a few years time, and for decades afterwards, we'd all be
cursing the developers for their shortsightedness.

My view is that the only significant sin of the IPv6 developers, at least
the only one which is relevant here, is to have underestimated the coming
success of the Internet.  It is that success which allowed the Internet to
grow so vast and to become so very cheap, the major factors which conspire
to make the IPv6 transition much harder than anyone thought.

Thanks.

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/>                                      +61 7 3858 3100

--On 16 June 2011 6:30:25 PM +0900 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Or, what was the biggest reason/rationale not to make IPv6 compatible
> with IPv4. Was there good assumption that IPv6 will
> "take over" that of IPv4 - I mean replacing IPv4 rather than
> co-existing with IPv4 for a considerable period of time which
> is, in my view, the situation today. The full, immediate "transition"
> model.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2011/5/27 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly the IETF could have made the v6 compatible with v4, but they
>>> didn't.
>>
>> In what way would it have been technically possible to make IPv6
>> compatible with IPv4?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/>                                      +61 7 3858 3100

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t