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

[Milton L Mueller]

Paul:

> -----Original Message-----
> 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

[Milton L Mueller] well, not all of these are complete misconceptions. Some new equipment does have to be purchased, esp by network operators. No, the physical layer doesn't change. Some services may not work. Equipment that runs dual stack won't have to be replaced. 

> 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.

[Milton L Mueller] This analogy misses something important: the network externality, or what some call network effects. An electric car gets me from point A to point B regardless of how many others are driving electric cars. My ability to use ipv6 to full effect and reap full benefits, however, depends very much on how many other people are also using ipv6. (there are some network effects in the fueling infrastructure in the migration, but they are weaker and secondary compared to the v4-v6 migration.) 

On the other hand the electric-gasoline analogy is a good one in that it should be evident to everyone that we will _never_ completely get rid of internal combustion vehicles. 

> 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.


> 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.

[Milton L Mueller] 
[Milton L Mueller] This is a good point. A clean break will have some benefits - if we succeed in making it.

 
____________________________________________________________
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