NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: "There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will be ugly"

Reconfigured is a good term. The basic fallacy is that the article makes it
simply about the need for more addresses and some linear agendas as in
improving some underlying parameters. The comments on an IPv6 NAT are
interesting but too much in the replacement way of thinking.

I've already posted my more general comments as
http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=IPIPV6 pointing out that IPv6 is an
incremental step and doesn't address the more fundamental flaws of today's
Internet in comingling naming and addressing and relying on a central source
of temporary identity. There is a bit of irony here -- if we can't see the
value in an Internet based on stable relationships then there is less
problem with putting NATs at ISPs (as Free.fr seems to be doing in its
public Wi-Fi in Paris).

I didn't see the article making the case for tunneling V6 over V4 as a way
to create a world of V6 applications. But then if you can't make the case
for needing V6 for peer-to-peer relationships as an indication that we ran
out of addresses long ago then moving NATs to ISPs doesn't seem that bad.

What is missing in the article is a larger vision that goes beyond the
accidental properties of today's Internet. But then that's where the article
may be most accurate -- the lack of a Plan B is not a failure of planning
per se but a failure to see beyond more of the same.

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 01:41
To: Lauren Weinstein
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: "There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6
transition will be ugly"


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> wrote:
> "There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will be ugly"
> http://bit.ly/di3dDm  (ars technica)
> Before I chime in on this, anybody want to address [no pun intended]
> any of the various assertions in this article?

While I know Iljitsch (who is a really smart guy BTW) I doubt this

"But all of this rapid progress is going to slow in the next few years."

This is also a bit of hyperbole:

"The internet will soon be sailing in very rough seas, as it's about to run
out of addresses, needing to be gutted and reconfigured for continued

"Reconfigured", certainly, "gutted" probably not.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel