good points Fred. I tend to look @ things differently
1. IPv7 is not here 2. IPv6 is Moving forward only helps all of us - and it is not a move 1 step forward and 2 steps back ... so in this case the vendors supporting IPV6 just makes sense. On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 1/14/2011 10:15 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: >> Fred, I thought about posting back to you all day yesterday and >> finally decided to. > > Glad you did. I don't mind taking unpopular views. > >> I agree that there will always be some sort of IPV4 out and >> available. They are constantly trying to get universities who were >> given huge blocks that have used less than 5% to relinquish parts of >> it. But as Tom DeReggi has stated that there is other benefits. I >> am not excited about being a bleeding edge adopter but I am looking >> forward to more training on this issue and being prepared for when >> there is a benefit for my clients. > > WRT v4, since v6 lacks compatibility, we're stuck preserving v4 for > everyone for a long time, so we should expect to use more CGNAT, and > more efficient address assignment rules. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. > > I'm not so sure that these other benefits are real, or require v6. I > saw how IPv6 was created, and what the rules were at the time. It > was a very sorry process. They had previously adopted a much better > IPv7, but misbehaving children on the IETF made total arses of > themselves (Lyman was getting about 70 phone calls *per hour*) and > convinced IAB to reopen the issue. (Specifically, Vint changed his > vote.) Their objection was purely poltical; IPv7 (TUBA) was based on > IS8473, CLNP. And thus it was tainted, even though CLNP was the > *good* part of the OSI program. The good people were then frustrated > and left. The B-team put IPv6 together, starting with a silly rule > that it should only fix the address space problem, not any > fundamental architectural issues in IP (some of which were addressed > by TUBA). So 17 years later, in a very different world, we have a > very costly proposal with very limited benefits. > > I am (not here, but in other fora) proposing that we migrate away > from TCP/IP per se and towards a newer protocol suite. What I'm > backing is simpler than migrating to v6, coexists better with v4, and > offers much more real benefits to its adopters (user and ISP alike). > >> The reason I take this stance is I have been in the computer >> industry for 26 years. I know almost ever DOS command there is and >> can still write a pretty mean batch file menu system if needed in a >> pinch. One day my largest client at that time with 100 workstations >> and the new Novel 2.15 server asked me what I thought about this new >> Windows 2.86 software. I told him that it was all a fad why would >> you want to rum more than lotus 123 and WordPerfect. When Windows >> 3.0 came out I got a copy and started playing with it and I thought >> I might be wrong. I setup a meeting with that large company and >> told them I was wrong. They informed me that they already knew that >> and due to my short sidedness they had just signed a service >> agreement with another company. I lost a company that I had made >> $150K off of the previous year. I vowed to never look at future >> possibilities the same. > > Ironically, IPv6 was designed when Windows 3 was bleeding edge, Word > Perfect dominated, and Novell was the king of networking. IP itself > is older than MS-DOS. IPv6 is sort of like adding LIM expanded memory > (remember that?) to DOS. It handles bigger data tables, but it's > still DOS. Yes, customers may ask for it, so you may be stuck for a > while supplying it, but that's no reason to embrace it as The > Solution or spend a lot on it. > >> Y2K was a bust but I made lots of money giving lectures telling >> people that I had no idea what was going to be happening but that >> all organizations needed to plan for emergencies and have back plans >> whether it was Y2K, a fire, an Ice storm, or a tornado. >> >> Same goes with IPV6. I am not sure what will happen or if it even >> will. But I need to have a plan to be ready no matter what >> comes. The federal government has set a directive to make all their >> networks IPV6 compliant by next year I believe. So if I want to be >> able to service their traffic then I have to have it. > > I remember the 1985 GOSIP requirement too. Government procurements > had to be OSI compatible. So yeah, people made money selling > it. But nobody actually used it... > > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Glenn Kelley | Principal | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
