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

[McDonald Richards]

As a cynic, what are you doing to help ensure the take-up and survival of
IPv6?

 

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of dasmo
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2009 6:42 PM
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft
Cc: link at anu.edu.au; AusNOG at ausnog.net; iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [LINK] [ISOC-AU-mems] Happy Birthday ... AARNet

 

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  <mailto:marksmith at adam.com.au>
<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/20090317/93a26294/attachment.html>