[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...



On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Stephens, Josh
<Josh.Stephens at solarwinds.com> wrote:
> Not something I'd typically use this list for but I have
> an opportunity to host a debate of sorts on IPv6 where
> I'm taking a very pro IPv6 stance and I need someone
> who wants to argue the other side - effectively that most
> people don't need to worry about it for a long time still or
> until someone makes them.

http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
Joking, but only half joking.

What kind of debate? Live debate doesn't work for me; I have the
answers 15 minutes later. Personally, I'm leaning IPv6, but I can tell
you the arguments opposed....

* Timing means we have to do carrier NAT anyway. Why go to both expenses?

* Carrier NAT buys us enough years to build an IPv4 successor that
actually solves some of the intractable IPv4 problems. Deploying IPv6
as it exists today requires massive amounts of manpower yet solves
none of IPv4's problems save for the larger address space. Worse, it
even doesn't appear to create the opportunity to solve those problems.

* High disruption risk deploying IPv6 as implemented. May be smarter
to wait until we have a protocol without the design errors that make
IPv6 such a high deployment risk.

* Will have learned enough in an aborted IPv6 transition to do the
next one with minimal disruption. Things like host and network level
configuration of protocol priorities so we have a better ability to
stagger the cut-over process.

* IPv6 remains half-baked with key technologies like enterprise NAT
missing from the products. It isn't really ready for wide deployment;
it's only being driven by IPv4 address exhaustion -- which we can
defer for a couple decades through carrier NAT and other address
reclamation enablers.

* Next protocol should really be designed to support interoperability
with the old one from the bottom up. IPv6 does not, requiring
expensive and indefinite dual stack.

* Can solve the multihoming/mobility problems we see in v4 if we ditch
TCP with the next protocol and build something with multilevel dynamic
addressing at the heart. Those problems remain intractable if we
don't... and for IPv6 we didn't.

and so on.




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004