FW: IPv6 stumble

[Steve Wilcox]

There are lots of people making proposals around IPv6, however they are just
that - proposals.

I believe hierarchy has been suggested several times (including intially in
v6's life cycle). Imagine a world where IANA is at the top of the tree, it
hands to RIRs who hand to Network Operators and customers get their
addresses from there. It sounds nice but in reality it doesn't work, there
are commercial, technological and geographical factors in the real world.

Search for IPv8 for one account of what happens to hierarchical proposals
(altho that isnt the only reason that proposal never gained traction).

But, redefine v6 format? - v6 is 10+ years old and implemented on real
production equipment in many places. Changing the format is changing the
protocol.. (compare to moving from v4 to v6)...

The big problem with v4 is we're about to run out of addresses - what
problem will a new v6 address format solve?

my 2c

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Glenn Tapley (gtapley) <gtapley at cisco.com>
wrote:

>  I received this query from an acquaintance and would love to know what
> the true story is here.  Any ideas?
>
>  ------------------------------
> *Subject:* IPv6 stumble
>
>  Shared a cab from the airport with an engineer.  He said the IPv6 has
> just run into its first big stumble.  As you know one of IPv6's claim to
> fame is that addresses would be handed down from ISPs to the customers. This
> would make address summarization and therefore route summarization easier.
> However so many end customers have been directly assigned  address that
> routing in the IPv6 bone has become flat (one of the big problems with the
> IPv4 bone).  The engineer indicated he is working on a project to redefine
> the IPv6 format to include a orginization ID to address this problem. Anyone
> else heard anything about this?
>
>



-- 
Global Infrastructure
Google Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20080430/24bfe79c/attachment.htm>