Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

Eric and Noel, I've taken the liberty of moving this to the critertia
list.


 > >>      Eric:
 > >>      An interesting viewpoint! A couple of things I want to ask about:
 >  >>   * Scalabilty
 > >>Why is this so high for you guys? Presumably you mostly just care if the
 > >>network can be big enough for your company? If you intend to be globally
 > >>connected, and this is important, shouldn't Robustness/Security be higher?
 > 
 > Scalability and router aggregation is at the top of our criteria list
 > because these are the primary problems IPv7 are trying to resolve.
 > Other problem resolutions, we feel, are secondary to this (we concur
 > with Ullmann's Email messages in this regards).  We care
 > about this matter because the world is "getting smaller" and every
 > Internet user must be concerned with the continued viability of the
 > Internet community as a whole if the Internet is to continue to meet
 > our various parochial needs.

I love this answer :-) We must all put the interests of the Internet
above any purely local needs (the phrase "enlightened self-interest"
comes to mind here). Without a healthy, robust, ubiquitous Internet
then TCP/IP is "just another protocol."

 > 
 > >>  * Ease/possibility of transition
 > >>Everyone should contemplate the fact that this was one of their 'top 2'. If a
 > >>scheme doesn't have *real* complete interoperability to unmodifed hosts, my
 > >>prediction is it'll be much less desireable (i.e. "undesireable").
 > 
 > We concur.  An ultimate solution from our point of view will not ask
 > currently deployed hosts to be touched in order to function in the
 > "new world".  Since router deployments tend to be two order 
 > of magnitudes smaller in size (at least they are in our network) 
 > we vastly prefer the solution to primarily impact routers,
 > as opposed to both hosts and routers.  We have previously posted a
 > corporate position dealing with our preferences if there is no alternative
 > to modifying hosts.  However, the key message we wish to send is that
 > migrational issues are "key" from our viewpoint.  From our knothole,
 > "ease of migration/transition" is among the top two requirements in 
 > importance.

I think that this is important. There will always be pockets of IPv4
that never get upgraded for some reason or another and we have to be
concerned with these. They ought not be locked out of the Internet.
These pockets might, however, provide a less-rich set of functions
and services than IPv7 hosts would have. For example, IPv7 could
have a robust, strong security function in it. IPv4 does not have
such a function (and for the sake of argument, let's assume that one
is not developed). The IPv4-only hosts would then not have the
security offered by IPv7.

 > 
 >  >> * Last a long time (20 years).

 > Lasting 20 years is an extremely important goal for IPv7.  However, it
 > seems to us that it is a "warm and fuzzy".  Many of its hard criteria are

Our latest version of the draft has a section that could, uncharitably,
be called "warm and fuzzy goals" which is where this is.


--
Frank Kastenholz