NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ 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 McTim 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" Hi, 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 assertion: "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 growth" "Reconfigured", certainly, "gutted" probably not. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel