[AusNOG] [LINK] [ISOC-AU-mems] Happy Birthday ... AARNet

[dasmo]

I personally think the whole thing is doomed to fail, but I'm a  
negative person.

On 17/03/2009, at 18:36, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode.com.au>  
wrote:

> Not sure about your argument.
>
> The main problem is that at the moment that the standards that  
> deliver v6 broadband in a general sense are still all draft and, at  
> the moment, don't quite work together.  (Feel free to tell me I'm  
> wrong, but ONLY if you can actually send me a complete set of  
> receipes to do it as at least one Broadband Forum member has told me  
> it can't be done yet).  The main sticking point is prefix delegation  
> and how that works in an end-user's network.
>
> Once this is fixed and people stop having pissing matches about who  
> wins (AutoConf, DHCPv6 etc) we'll be sweet and the CPE vendors can  
> finish their work.
>
> (Yes, you can do this in the simple case with static ranges etc, but  
> that doesn't scale and doesn't work for normal people like my  
> parents).
>
> MMC
>
> dasmo wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me the problem is cash. ISPs won't eat it. Probably need it
>> subsidised by the government. Some transit providers still aren't  
>> ipv6
>> compatible, there's customer equiptment that needs to be replaced and
>> there's no authority setting a deadline like the digital tv system.
>> Plus, it's hard to explain the benefits to an end user who will most
>> likely see the issues now rather than a solution to an issue from the
>> future.
>>
>> Would be a better use of money than that stupid filter though.
>>
>> On 17/03/2009, at 16:57, Mark Smith <marksmith at adam.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Geoff Huston wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I specifically remember a slip connection to Hawaii growing from
>>>>> 1200
>>>>> bps to 2400 bps preceeding the 56Kb frame relay connection.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yawn. That was years ago. On to today's problems. What are we going
>>>> to
>>>> do given that noone is doing anything remotely serious in IPv6 and
>>>> the
>>>> crunch time of IPv4 address exhaustion is getting ever closer? If  
>>>> we
>>>> can't manage to preserve some level of protocol coherence across  
>>>> the
>>>> network in the coming few years then we may end up not much better
>>>> off
>>>> than the situation on 20 years ago. Or do we say goodbye to all  
>>>> this
>>>> end-to-end IP stuff and just run client sever over http and forget
>>>> than anything else was ever possible?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think Internet end-users are aware of the problem, let a  
>>> alone
>>> what it is, why its occurring, and what the consequences will be.  
>>> They
>>> haven't been told what it is, and they don't know to ask for it.
>>>
>>> That seems to me to be a marketing problem. We need to get the  
>>> message
>>> to the Internet end-user market that the Internet is heading  
>>> towards a
>>> wall, and needs to be upgraded. We need to explain in very simple
>>> terms,
>>> what the problem is - "The Internet is running out of phone  
>>> numbers!"
>>> (and then explain that public Internet addresses are like phone
>>> numbers)
>>> - I think should be a simple enough place to start.
>>>
>>> Who should run this campaign? ISOC or the IPv6 Forum (or both) I
>>> reckon.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090317/bd57c3f7/attachment.html>