>> For one, the economic benefit of being able to change ISPs without >> internal numbering, and the consequence that the ISPs lose the >> leverage of "locking in" customers to their address space. Remember >> that in V6 addressing, only the low-order part of the address needs >> to be enterprise-specific. > >It is difficult for me to see that there is enough money here to justify a >transition.
ISP service is becoming more and more a commodity. Incumbent carriers often retain accounts due to the difficulty of renumbering. I'm not saying that enterprise flexibility to change carriers is going to result in more revenue to the carrier -- quite the contrary. It will make IP transport cheaper, and the carriers may have to go there to be competitive. > >> >> New revenue streams MAY be possible with some of the organizations >> that already have adopted V6, such as 3rd generation wireless, HDTV, >> and next-generation air traffic control. > >The key question there is 'may'. Carriers don't just spend money just >because there may be new revenue streams - they have to be pretty darn sure >there will be and how much and when they will start getting it and all that. >Like I said, the dotcom silliness is over. Agreed, and I'm certainly not recommending a massive cutover to V6. I also will make the point that V6 itself doesn't do much to deal with the problems of global routing scalability, probably a more immediate problem than address exhaustion. It could help a little with several built-in levels of aggregation, but that's by no means a solved problem. You might want to look at the discussion in the IETF PTOMAINE working group, as well as the two IRTF reports on future domain routing. But niche applications will grow. > > > >> >> >> For example, people talk about how wonderful ipv6 is for >> >> eliminating the >> >> need for NAT and how you can now give every device in the world >> >> its own >> > > unique address. >> >> Speaking as someone who was there when the decisions on V6 were made, >> and continuing to be active in NAT work, this "wonderful" idea is, in >> the view of the IETF, urban legend. There was NEVER an attempt to >> justify V6 because it could give a static address to everything in >> the world. The long address is there because it allows provider >> addressing information to be decoupled from enterprise addressing >> information. I realize that there are large organizations, such as >> the PRC government, that look at V6 as something that can give them >> unique static addresses (and it could), but that's NOT the way it was >> designed to be used. > >Good, very good. I'm glad somebody said this. Please come to >alt.certification.cisco and set the guys there straight. Dudes over there >seem to love ipv6 because they apparently see some reason in giving their >toaster a globally unique address. Not sure I have time for another newsgroup, but feel free to pass this on. Ask them to look at such things as the Router Renumbering Protocol, autoconfiguration with the Neighbor Discovery Protocol, etc., and ask why they are there if static addressing is the answer. And for that matter, DHCP or self-configuration dynamic DNS update is probably more scalable and easier to troubleshoot than something that completely depends on addresses. One of the hardest things to get across when one gets into serious routing theory is the difference between a locator and identifier, especially when people overload the IP address to be both. I get frustrated with some of my own sysadmins when I even give them the DNS RRs to name a new host, and they insist on referring to it by IP address---which gets especially confusing when I might variously be accessing it in front of, or behind, the NAT firewall. > > >> >> Aside from the addressing aspects, there are also functional changes >> in the protocol. Yes, pretty much all can be done with IPv4 >> extensions, but not as cleanly or as efficiently. > >I believe that almost everything in telecom could be done more cleanly and >efficiently. The problem is that there is so much legacy infrastructure >that nobody wants to throw out. One guy once said that God made the world >in 7 days because he didn't have an installed base to deal with. I replied >that it was more like God made the world in 7 days because he didn't have >any gear on a 15-year depreciation schedule. Oh, there's much to be learned in that context. Is it an accident, do you think that evil was introduced by the SNAke? Or that multivendor interoperability was first demonstrated when Eve held an apple in one hand and a wang in the other? :-) > >> >> >But the crucial question is how exactly do the >> >> providers >> > > benefit financially from all this? >> >> If nothing else, it gives providers the ability to get into new >> accounts that previously were barred to them by the customer's >> unwillingness to renumber out of provider-assigned addres space. > >That is, unfortunately, counteracted by providers who want to lock in >accounts by forcing those accounts to renumber if they want to get another >provider. So I think it's a wash. You may be completely right. It'll probably depend on specific markets rather than a single answer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53821&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
