Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:31:23 -0400

> right, noels wrong.

Noel is happy to wait, and see who's right. (I've been through this exact
same experience before, with CLNP, so I understand the life-cycle.) So far,
I've been waiting for quite a few years with IPv6, and so far I'm right.

Let's see, how many years have these standards been out, and how much
deployment has there been? Hmm, RFC-1883 was in December 1995. Can you point
me to *any* other IETF product that, 5 years after the Proposed Standard came
out, still hadn't been significantly deployed - and then went on to be a
success?

No?

I didn't think so.

    > NATs are not only bad e2e karma, they are bad tech

I'm not denying that - and I've said as much. All address-sharing devices are
problematic, and some (e.g. NAT boxes) are downright disgusting kludges.

However, history shows that bad tech doesn't magically replace itself, it has
to be replaced by an economically viable alternative. (For an example of this
principle in action, note that the vast majority of cars are still powered by
reciprocating internal-combustion engines... talk about poor basic concept!
But I digress....)

Judging from the real world out there, it appears that IPv6 isn't a viable
alternative.

	Noel

---

From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:11:46 -0500 (CDT)

> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:31:23 -0400
> From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
> 
> 	[...]

Perhaps, we can start a pool to guess the date of the first IPv6-only
IETF meeting (laptop connections, wireless network, desktops all running
only IPv6).

Or, perhaps a true believer would like to propose that the network at
an upcoming IETF meeting support _only_ IPv6.  Perhaps the IPv6 working
group could staff a help desk.  I would make this proposal myself, but I
am concerned that I might be accused of trying to create a media spectacle
that would set back (?) IPv6 adoption by several years.

(If there is an IPv6-only  IETF meeting soon, I hope I can get one of
those IETF phone cards from Phil Gross -- I might want to go to me room
and get some work done.)

((Actually, I think an IPv6-only IETF meeting would be sort of neat.
I would at least try to get IPv6 working on my laptop.))

(((If we think an IPv6-only IETF meeting in impractical at this time, we
should consider not asking anyone else to migrate their network to IPv6
until it is mature enough to support an IETF meeting.)))

-tjs

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:10:31 +0100

>>No?

wrong - multicast.

 >>I didn't think so.
 
read again  - LOTS of things have seen almost no deployment since
being standar,d and lots of things haev seen deploymewnt (e.g. napster
hit around 15% of college traffic) without even a breath of an i-d

 >>reciprocating internal-combustion engines... talk about poor basic concept!

i agree...

 >>Judging from the real world out there, it appears that IPv6 isn't a viable

i agree its not worth holding one's breath...

 cheers

   jon