Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:57:07 -1000
> From: Randy Bush <randypsg.com>
> Sender: owner-nanogmerit.edu
> 
> 
> > So run IPv6 natively and your tunneling issues are
history.
> 
> son, get a clue.  i work for the first isp on the
bleeping planet to
> deploy native ipv6

I beg to differ. Add the word "commercial" and I
might agree.

Sitting under my desk is the first system in the US with a
production IP
address. (No, it's not still running. It's an old DEC
Alphstation.)
ESnet has run native IPv6 as a fully supported production
service for
years. 

Randy is right that eliminating tunnels does not make all of
the IPv6
problems go away. It just eliminates the ones caused by the
use of
tunnels. The REAL problems are not going anywhere for a long
time, it
ever. 
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley
Lab)
E-mail: obermanes.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3
987B 3751

>>> So run IPv6 natively and your tunneling issues
are history.
>> son, get a clue.  i work for the first isp on the
bleeping planet 
>> to deploy native ipv6
> I beg to differ. Add the word "commercial"
and I might agree.

whoops!  <blush>  apologies!

> eliminating tunnels does not make all of the IPv6
problems go away. 
> It just eliminates the ones caused by the use of
tunnels.

in and of itself, this is a good thing.  tunnels suck
caterpillar snot.

> The REAL problems are not going anywhere for a long
time, if ever.

indeed, many will be with us for a long time.  but there are
a bunch we
could knock off in a few years
  o dual stack backbones (and it's as much the vendors as
the isps here)
  o dual stack consumer cpe
  o routers that hold 2m routes *with churn* from enterprise
to backbone
  o test equipment to differentiate vendor hot air from
actual
    performance
  o nat-pt with standardized algs for at least dns, smtp,
http, sip, and
    rtp

randy

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:59:53 -1000
Randy Bush <randypsg.com> wrote:

> > The REAL problems are not going anywhere for a
long time, if ever.
> 
> indeed, many will be with us for a long time.  but
there are a bunch
> we could knock off in a few years
>   o dual stack backbones (and it's as much the vendors
as the isps
> here)
>   o dual stack consumer cpe
>   o routers that hold 2m routes *with churn* from
enterprise to
> backbone o test equipment to differentiate vendor hot
air from actual
>     performance
>   o nat-pt with standardized algs for at least dns,
smtp, http, sip,
> and rtp
> 
I once complained to Bjarne Stroustrup about some aspect of
C++.  He
replied that it was not the best possible language, but
rather the
best language possible.  He was dealing with programmers who
were
recent converts to C; indeed, many of them had only recently
been
weaned from lower-level assembler languages.  (Doug McIlroy
once told
me that C was the best assembler language he'd ever used.  I
agree with
him.)  I feel much the same about IPv6.

IPv6 isn't what I wanted it to be.  During the IPng
directorate,
several of us (including me and at least one of the chairs)
pushed very
hard for id/locator split.  We lost.  That was 1994; it's
over and done
with.  But it took 13 years from then to a (mostly) complete
set of
specs and universal implementation, at least in all systems
shipping
today.  Even if there was universal agreement that the
design was wrong
and that we should start over, I can't see it taking less
than 10 years
to get back to the current level of maturity.  We don't have
that
long.  We don't even have any guarantees that we'd get
everything right
if we tried again; while we could avoid today's known
pitfalls, I'm
sure there are aleph_0 more waiting for us.  To me, then,
the question
is "now what?"

We have to get off of v4.  We're dying the death of a
thousand NATs.
What we have to do is push the responsible parties -- CPE
vendors,
ISPs, router vendors, and yes, the IETF -- to fill in the
holes.



		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbi
a.edu/~smb

Kevin Oberman wrote:

> Randy is right that eliminating tunnels does not make
all of the IPv6
> problems go away. It just eliminates the ones caused by
the use of
> tunnels. The REAL problems are not going anywhere for a
long time, it
> ever. 

It would be nice to see some evidence of some forward motion
but I don't
see any. The vendors seem to point at a lack of demand and
the ISPs
claim a lack of support from the vendors and/or not customer
demand. If
the ISPs tried to deploy it for themselves then perhaps this
current
impasse could be broken and the current shortcomings would
then have
some visibility with the vendors and that might encourage
the IETF to
address the real issues.

A quick look at some of the usual suspects shows not much
consumption of
their own dog food.

<http://www.mrp.net/IS
P.html> although the R&E community isn't much
better <http://www.mrp
.net/Internet2.html>.

Mark.

At 7:56 PM +0930 9/30/07, Mark Prior wrote:
>
>It would be nice to see some evidence of some forward
motion but I don't
>see any. The vendors seem to point at a lack of demand
and the ISPs
>claim a lack of support from the vendors and/or not
customer demand.

It's going to get real interesting, since (in general):

1) Customers aren't going to ask for IPv6 (it's not their
problem)
2) ISP's may plan a few years out, but don't make capital
commitments
    until they're absolutely required.
3) It takes most vendors 3 to 6 months to move requirements
through
    marketing and 1 year plus for engineering and chip
design.

Alas, this particular feature set (functional IPv6 and
transition tools)
is not just one new protocol feature or option; it's an
order of magnitude
more complex and will take ISP's months (or even years) to
deploy.

It's amazing that got the need for the new protocol right
more than a
decade ago, but seemed to have left all the details to the
last minute.

>If the ISPs tried to deploy it for themselves then
perhaps this current
>impasse could be broken and the current shortcomings
would then have
>some visibility with the vendors and that might
encourage the IETF to
>address the real issues.

Agreed.

>A quick look at some of the usual suspects shows not
much consumption of
>their own dog food.
>...
><http://www.mrp.net/IS
P.html>

Very nice chart!
/John

John Curran wrote:
> At 7:56 PM +0930 9/30/07, Mark Prior wrote:
>> It would be nice to see some evidence of some
forward motion but I don't
>> see any. The vendors seem to point at a lack of
demand and the ISPs
>> claim a lack of support from the vendors and/or not
customer demand.
> 
> It's going to get real interesting, since (in
general):
> 
> 1) Customers aren't going to ask for IPv6 (it's not
their problem)

Well some do  but in
general it's just the plumbing that no one cares
about.

> 2) ISP's may plan a few years out, but don't make
capital commitments
>     until they're absolutely required.

Yes but many ISPs would be using hardware that the vendors
claim is
compliant so why not test their claims and start submitting
bug reports?

Of more concern would be the operations and management
software, which
probably doesn't exist. This probably means that right now
any
deployment would need to focus on the ISP itself rather than
their
customers. Although some customers are happy to beta test
just about
anything 

> Alas, this particular feature set (functional IPv6 and
transition tools)
> is not just one new protocol feature or option; it's an
order of magnitude
> more complex and will take ISP's months (or even years)
to deploy.

These are the same ISPs and vendors that seem to have
managed to deploy
MPLS in a more rapid fashion.

> It's amazing that got the need for the new protocol
right more than a
> decade ago, but seemed to have left all the details to
the last minute.

I hope we're not waiting to see what happens at the end of
that minute.

Mark.

At 11:35 PM +0930 9/30/07, Mark Prior wrote:
>
>> Alas, this particular feature set (functional IPv6
and transition tools)
>> is not just one new protocol feature or option;
it's an order of magnitude
>> more complex and will take ISP's months (or even
years) to deploy.
>
>These are the same ISPs and vendors that seem to have
managed to deploy
>MPLS in a more rapid fashion.

That's was very different circumstance:  "See, if we
light up our nationwide
and metro wavelengths with MPLS, we can not only run the
cool Internet
stuff over it, but we can move all the
intermarket/interswitch voice trunks
over it, and save $$ and will make any investment back real
pronto.  Yep,
I've got the numbers right here.   Great, thanks for your
help with this!"

IPv6 is:  "Well, umm, there's this IP assignment team,
and ah.. no, I mean
Internet Protocol, not the legal department.  Yes, those two
guys, right across
from the abuse desk.  Yep, the spam guys.  Anyway, they say
there's a real
issue coming up soon, but we're not really sure when, and
what??  Yes, it's
likely to be past your tenure here, but still, we need to
spend $$ now to be
ready for this thing, and we're not really sure what the new
architecture is
yet.  Huh?  No, I don't really know what our competitors are
doing, but I'm
sure that... Okay, yep, I understand.  I'll send it all in
an email.  Who else
should I send it to?  Hello? Hello?  Can you hear me
now?"


/John

p.s.  Apologies in advance to anyone I've worked with, IP
registration folks
       in every ISP, and for anyone who's ad tag line I may
have borrowed...