[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ping-pong phenomenon with p2p links & /127 prefixes
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:19:26 -0400
Jared Mauch <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:24:00 +0200 (CEST)
> > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >>> And all you'll end up with is IPv4 with bigger addresses. You really
> >>> should catch up with the useful features of protocols that were
> >>> designed in the late 80s / early 90s, like IPX, Appletalk, DECNet and
> >>> CLNS.
> >> For me "more addresses" is the *only* justification for IPv6. All the
> >> other "useful" features are either uninteresting or even *unwanted*.
> > Just so I know, are you confirming that you've only ever used IPv4, and
> > know nothing about any other protocols and how they worked?
> > Your view seems to me to be a bit like saying, "I'm perfectly happy
> > with my 1970s car, it gets me from A to B, and I see no reason to have
> > electric windows, anti-lock brakes, electronic fuel injection, or a GPS,
> > because my 1970s car doesn't have them".
> If customers were saying they wanted "network based security" more people
> would be offering it. Problem is that most providers set the price of
> $security_thing (either 2547-style vpn, etc..) as something too costly
> or external auditors don't sign-off on it, so they say:
> give me $dumb_pipe @ 5G/s and toss their own IPSec/VPN/whatnot
> device/appliance on-top of it.
> The biggest feedback I hear from people about IPv6 (besides the extra
> bits for addressses) is "Security", but they generally don't know what
> that is outside marketing speak. Saying that your 1970's car doesn't
> have an onboard GPS is correct, but that doesn't mean the customer won't
> just get a $200 aftermarket at walmart.
Well, GPS was only one of the examples I used, and I was envisioning
one that is built into the dash. To continue with the analogy, how many
people would buy and install after-market electric windows, anti-lock
brakes, electronic fuel injection etc.?
> Is that ideal for the $car_mfg?
> Surely it is a hit on the profit margin, but overall customers are just
> asking for $dumb_pipe @ 5Gb/s @ $low_low_price_per_meg.
I think you haven't really realised who the customers are of IPv6 or
more generally Internet technologies. It isn't the people who pay ISPs
or indirectly pay to access the Internet via corporate networks. They're
customers of Internet services. More specifically they're customers of
the function of allowing applications or processes to intercommunicate
internationally. They don't and shouldn't have to care about the
technology that makes it work. That's what operators are for. Thats why
the "cloud" analogy for networks is a good one - it represents a
concept of "don't worry about that magic inside, just assume your data
will get from one side to the other". (no I'm not talking about "cloud
The people who buy, deploy and operate the technology of the Internet
are the customers of IPv6. That's not the general public, that's people
like you and I. Our job is to use Internet technologies to deliver
Internet services to our customers. So when I say I think this is what
I'd like IPv6 to do, or it shouldn't work like IPv4 because there are
potentially better ways to do it, I'm the customer. So when I ask for
simplicity, I'm asking for it so that my job is easier and quicker, and
therefore cheaper in time or money for my customers - the end-users of
Internet services. I'm even asking for it so that they don't even have
to employ me to get basic connectivity going on a small scale, even
without understanding the technology. (I'm also asking for it so that I
won't have relatives ask me to help setup their Internet connections at
home - as if I want to do my job unpaid on the weekend as well ...)
Protocols like IPX and Appletalk demonstrated how easily deployable
protocols could be made on a small to medium scale, and they did it in
the 1990s. They define the minimum of what any protocol designed since
then should be able to achieve in user friendliness. IPv4 doesn't.
To paraphrase Soylent Green, "IPv6 customers is operators!"