[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
- To: "Fleischman, Eric" <email@example.com>, David Conrad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
- From: Peter Sherbin <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=nYyp1VBTeUJgM3zYki74fB9wAYjSVqlT0kbA2Q2EysXb6soW28xHzUJXnFdFakM8im1gbGWamKVhOwqenzyCTPrPrCG6b3HeHf8n1dR9Waels7oHeqtQ4EhWUQX5ilGR7TTv0bEtRirsDYK/+b9tg9gEE6Q6pyuy/XRNzPofIxU=;
- In-reply-to: <CBAD07AA-D216-4D56-AEAA-84D10DF1D540@virtualized.org>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
> Further, as evidenced by the lack of any significant
> deployment after a dozen years, it can be argued that IPv6
> has been a clear market failure.
It depends. E.g. I have heard many times from not one ISP technology strategists in NA: "we have enough v4 addresses, why bother with v6". This argument may no longer apply in a few years.
In terms of the scalable architecture what seems to hinder development is the rigidity embedded in 32- and 128-bit "address". IMO until the link between a name and a locator is broken entirely that seems to remain a swamp point.
E.g. a new name space is offered as a universal standard to use by all (SDO, governments, communities, markets, etc). Does anyone see a value in having it? Should it apply to networkable devices only? Is it beyond the scope of RRG?
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org 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