Subject: RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT)

Mathis Jim-AJM005 <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We need to move forward with IPv6 both by deploying it in
> the "core" and setting a time-frame after which non-IPv4
> compatible addresses will be assigned.  Unless there is a
> clear reason to move, no one wants to change software just
> to change.  Once IPv6 is in the major backhaul carriers, ISPs
> can role out improved services based on IPv6 which will be
> the real reason end-users upgrade.  Seems like a real
> leadership vacuum here...

Hmmm ... seems like the same issues are in effect with regards to
deploying IPv6 in the "core", namely, no one wants to change software
just to change.  There don't seem to be overly compelling reasons (yet)
for a significantly large number of end users to switch to IPv6
compliant technology, such that it would spur deployment of IPv6 in the
critical infrastructure they use.  Rather, it has spurred deployment
of IPv4/NATv4.

Some of you know that I like to draw parallels between the Internet
and other media.  One possible analogy (with US radio broadcasting) is
that IPv4 is to AM as IPv6 is to FM.  Licensing of FM stations and the
eventual growth and development of that medium was accomplished through a
variety of means, such as limiting the number of new AM licenses granted,
and the development of programming on FM that became sufficiently compelling
that a marketplace grew for radios that could receive both AM and FM
broadcasts.

This suggests that a possible key to mass deployment of IPv6 could come
from stricter IPv4 address space allocation, but more likely from
development of content reachable *only* via IPv6 address space.  This would
hopefully compel the folks who currently want to stick with IPv4/NATv4 to
make/market/purchase IPv6-compliant solutions in order not to be left
behind.

For the record, I don't necessarily think stricter IPv4 address space
allocation is a good idea.  But using the US radio broadcasting analogy
again, a good deal of FM licenses were issued to people who wanted to be
broadcasters but had no choice but to go to FM because the FCC would not
issue them an AM license.

--gregbo

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:38:40 -0400

for a long time the assumption was that IPv6 would be deployed first
in the core, and then in the periphery, of the net.  I'm now of the
opinion that IPv6 will be deployed first in the periphery -
both in emerging networks that need large amounts of address space,
and in existing IPv4 nets using 6to4 - and it will be deployed
by folks who have applications that need global address space
(and which perhaps aren't already widely deployed using v4)
and by folks who need to be able to access the new IPv6-only networks.
the emerging networks may be large networks in parts of the world
that are just now getting on the Internet, wireless networks,
and other networks designed to support large-scale data gathering.
(power meters, auto traffic monitors, environmental monitoring,
security systems, etc.)

I think we will have a long period of v4/v6 coexistence, with v4 
becoming more and more NATted and popular applications moving
over to v6 based on how poorly they work under NATted IPv4.  the 
older and better established the application under IPv4, the longer 
it will take to move it to v6.  SMTP will use IPv4 for a very long 
time - not that it won't use IPv6 when available, but for a long time
you'll need to have at least one IPv4-based SMTP server acting as a 
mail exchanger for your domain, in order to reliably receive mail.

the core will support v6 when it makes economic sense - i.e. when
top tier ISPs can save enough on bandwidth and support costs (as compared 
to tunneling) to make the investment worthwhile.  which is not to
say that some major ISPs won't support IPv6 before then.

as for your AM vs. FM analogy - there are a variety of theories about
this, ranging anywhere from artifically making v4 addresses even 
more scarce to encouraging a run on v4 address space and making them
scarce that way.  but I think the shortage of IPv4 address space 
will encourage adoption of IPv6 even without changing allocation policy.

Keith

---

From: Tripp Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:41:56 +0000 (/etc/localtime)

> say that some major ISPs won't support IPv6 before then.

We came up with a wacky idea here yesterday at Interop... Why not
accelerate v6 deployment by writing a virus that will upgrade
end-stations' stacks? :)

That will give us the pervasive deployment needed to convince the ISPs to
upgrade the core. The "upgrade" that the virus propagates can do
gratuitous tunneling until it discovers that the infrastructure between it
and the rest of the world has been upgraded.

I mean, let's at least turn this (W)insecure liability into _some_ kind of
asset :)

(yes, any such toy would need to include a raft of known exploits for
various Unices, so we can include them in the "upgrade") :)

-- 
   Tripp Lilley  *  [email-masked]  *  http://stargate.sg505.net/~tlilley/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "I get a lot of letters like, 'Dear John, I've got a dead alien. What
   should I do with it?'  One word: barbecue!"

   - John Lovitz, A Yellow Pages commercial

---

From: Paul Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 10:10:30 +0100

> accelerate v6 deployment by writing a virus that will upgrade

Even better, why doesn't the IETF employ a bunch of people dressed in
black suits and wearing sun glasses to go around and 'enforce' IPv6...
not as subtle I know, but administrators have this stupid habit of
deleting viruses once they know what's going on, in the foolish belief
that they know what is best! Pah!

By sending a bunch of heavies around various Network Operations and Data
Operations Centers, we can ensure the quickest possible roll-out of IPv6
under the threat of 'Big Billy' getting 'a bit wild with the baseball
bat, right?' sort-of-thing. I'm sure over here in the UK we can
contribute a few East-London types to help everything along nicely...
 
> and the rest of the world has been upgraded.

Indeed, your solution would get right down to the end user ultimately,
which our lads would not be able to do necessarily, but if your ISP
phoned you up and told you that you had to upgrade to IPv6 'or else' you
would, wouldn't you?

This would also help us in gaining all sorts of blackmail material about
various administrators and senior managment of various ISPs used to put
a little pressure on them, but would also give the IETF an additional
revenue stream, and could potnetially ensure that even Microsoft started
following the 'standard line'... 
 
> various Unices, so we can include them in the "upgrade") :)

No! We don't want to fix the holes! We want to keep a record of them
without telling the admins, and when they misbehave, not only can we pop
their kneecaps, set fire to their house, release information to their
families they wouldn't want to be released, but also as a grand finale,
we can take control of the machine and do what we wanted anyway.
Eventually, we as the IETF would have complete control of every machine
connected to the Internet, thereby giving us control of the entire
planet, which in turn would allow us to park wherever we wanted and
*not*get*a*ticket*!!!!!! :-)

-- 
Paul Robinson - Developer/Sys Admin @ Akitanet http://www.akitanet.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales: T:+44 (0)1869 337088  F:+44 (0)1869 337488 E:[email-masked]
Techs: T:+44 (0)161 228 6388 F:+44 (0)161 228 6387 E:[email-masked]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 10:47:03 +0100

>>black suits and wearing sun glasses to go around and 'enforce' IPv6...

we do, but you keep forgetting.

:-)

j. iab member, and official "man in black"

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:58:13 -0400

ooops, sorry, I guess it was Paul that uncovered my retirement scheme.

v

>*not*get*a*ticket*!!!!!! :-)

=================================================================
I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999

MCI WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047

"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" 
See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000
http://www.isoc.org/inet2000