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

[Paul Wilson]

>> -----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.

New equipment yes, but what I said was: not different equipment for the 2 
different protocols.

And whether services work or not is not a significant function of this 
supposed "compatibility" issue, there are plenty of other more important 
factors at play there.  What I am trying to do Milton, is to get over one 
particular and specific point of irrelevance and confusion in this debate, 
not to address every other problem under this particular sun.


>> 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.)

Indeed it is an analogy, and therefore imperfect.


> 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.

I have said myself that IPv4 addresses will be around for a long time, but 
"never" is much longer than any forecast that I've personally ever made. 
Eventually IPv4 will be irrelevant enough that it will be dropped from 
services with few people noticing.  There will be a cost in maintaining 
IPv4 support on commercial services, so it actually will be withdrawn from 
entire networks, at a time when that decision makes commercial sense.  And 
this will happen quickly, once a tipping point is reached (I mean within 
possibly 5 or 10 years).


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

Not just "some" benefits, but inestimable benefits, when you really 
consider the reality of ongoing exponential growth of the Internet, over 
decades to come.

Paul.


____________________________________________________________
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