Hi Robin, >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Whittle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:58 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Templin, Fred L >Subject: Re: [RRG] RE: Is ISATAP a practical solution? IPv6 adoption > >Hi Fred, > >I will respond to what you wrote about header lengths and SEAL in a >separate thread. > >You wrote: > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ipvlx-08 >>> >>> Yet this ID hasn't been revised since May last year, its abstract >>> doesn't mention the routing scaling problem, and I don't recall >>> it being discussed on the RRG or RAM list. >> >> Are you suggesting for me to revise the IPvLX proposal? > >I would have thought that if the proposal was "active", that there >would be an 8 page summary and analysis document for it, and that >the relevant Internet draft be updated within 6 months. > >Since scalability is part of what you are trying to achieve (from >the introduction): > > This document proposes an architectural framework for IPv6/IPv4 > coexistence known as: "IPvLX (IP with virtual Link eXtension)" > with goals of limiting core routing table growth while supporting > scaling to arbitrarily large numbers of end systems and restoring > global Internet transparency. The scheme uses IPv6 for end system > interface identification and simple network middleboxes to extend > virtual links (VLs) across one or more IPv4 networks. > >I think it would be good to mention scalability in the abstract.
OK. >>> Now, and for the foreseeable future, there is no direct reason >>> why ordinary net users would want IPv6. Until virtually everyone >>> has IPv6, it is impossible to imagine why ordinary users would >>> want to relinquish their IPv4 addresses. >> >> IMHO, I don't envision the situation in which users would >> relinquish their existing IPv4 addresses, i.e., even if >> they move to IPv6. > >How then would your proposal help with the address scaling problem >in the IPv4 routing system? The idea is to check the growth of the IPv4 routing system at its current levels - or at least reduce growth to sub-linear rates. This means global IPv4 addresses for site-border routers, private IPv4 addresses for site-internal routers and/or "high-end" end systems, and IPv6 addresses for end systems and edge networks. The IPv4 routing scaling then deals in terms of accommodating new sites; not new end systems. >>> Maybe humanity will be stuck inhabiting IPv4 more and more >>> efficiently forever. Something like Positano, Italy: > >http://glamgal.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategor >ized/dsc00216.jpg > >>> with each end-user network making the most of its little public >>> patch of one or a few IP addresses, all crowded together. >>> >>> That is ugly compared to us moving to a more expansive addressing >>> scheme - and IPv6 is the only one on offer. >>> >>> I suspect that if NATs and their traversal become more >>> standardised that the "IPv4 forever" wouldn't be so disastrous >>> and that "no other choice but IPv6" would prove to be wrong. >> >> IMHO, it can be a "both/and" situation as opposed to all >> one way or the other. > >I suppose if some set of hosts, such as cellphones each with an IPv4 >address or an IPv6 /64, became needed in such numbers that they >couldn't all fit on IPv4, then this would mean a large number of >users would have native IPv6 addresses only. > >Then, some subset of other users (implicitly those with IPv4 >services only) would have some kind of reason to get IPv6 - for >instance to do more direct communication with those mobile hosts >than would be the case via whatever gateways etc. would be used >otherwise. > >Then, I suppose, over time the dual stack dual IPv4/IPv6 connection >model could spread. All this sounds really messy - everyone being >stuck in IPv4 forever or having part of the user base migrate to >IPv6, but most never wanting to leave IPv4 because it works fine. I don't think dual-stack would be practical for all low-end systems. Instead, IPv6-only in low-end systems plus IPv6-to-IPv4 translation in edge networks might be the best approach. >Thanks for the link to this overview: > >http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/7/c/07ca1a49-050c-4928 >-a13f-67bf812d3f80/ISATAPOverview.doc > >The detailed technical stuff is pointed to from there: > >Microsoft Intra-site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol >Deployment Guide > >http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=0f3a88 >68-e337-43d1-b271-b8c8702344cd&displaylang=en > >I won't pursue these, because I think that no solution to the IPv4 >routing scaling problem will be widely deployed if it relies in some >way on hosts having anything to do with IPv6. AFAICT, wide-scale deployment is already underway. Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Robin > -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
