Re: Why one Internet?

Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu> Wed, 11 April 2012 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BBB11E8096 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_HU=1.35, HOST_EQ_HU=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hUSWQvGTcISo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu (mail.ki.iif.hu [IPv6:2001:738:0:411::241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF5D11E808C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bolha.lvs.iif.hu (bolha.lvs.iif.hu [193.225.14.181]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B798387ACB; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:53:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bolha.lvs.iif.hu
Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([IPv6:::ffff:193.6.222.241]) by bolha.lvs.iif.hu (bolha.lvs.iif.hu [::ffff:193.225.14.72]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlhjOWLLpD5P; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:53:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id D52C687AC2; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:53:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D377487AA7; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:53:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:53:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu
To: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
In-Reply-To: <CACQuieZxAxTH9UdbwPjZojOuRkhP7aY5KjuXS-=z4HxmgsTeHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204110945230.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <CACQuieahKvE3VRPXcCirc4zhHokpkQVsMUDdcrjkZdNoSKpidg@mail.gmail.com> <4F8481B1.2000101@gmail.com> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BB7026F4@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com> <CACQuieZxAxTH9UdbwPjZojOuRkhP7aY5KjuXS-=z4HxmgsTeHg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-2049064918-1334130692=:40024"
Content-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204110952560.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:53:40 -0000



On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Pars Mutaf wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>       Yes, that was also my reaction. Why one Internet? Because Internet means tying together multiple separate networks. Of course you can have the same
>       addresses on the different networks. Nothing new there either. That?s why we have NATs, NAPTs, and IPv6 NPTs.
>
>        
>
>       No one is forcing an ISP or an enterprise network to use a combination of protocols. They can already opt to be IPv4 only, or IPv6 only, or dual
>       stack, or eventually IPv7. Matter of fact, years ago, our enterprise had an assortment of different networks, tied together by Softswitch gateways.
>       IPv4, SNA, DECnet.
>
>        
> 
> 
> I have no problem with anyone. I am facing my own illusions. 
> 
> Here is my conclusion after years of work on IPv6. 
> 
> IPv6 guy is just a salesman. 
> 
> But the salesman thought the entire world should buy his product. 

Not, but a reasonable technology for go forward with.

> 
> The product cannot change.

Wrong, See evolution of IPv6 in the past 10 years - lot has been changed - 
due to better understanding of requirements and drawback of certain 
solutions.

> 
> There is no other product. 

Yes there are, but ipv6 seems to be most reasonable at the moment.

> 
> Not even sure the product was really needed. 

See ipng work in the late 90's - it was requirement driven.

> 
> Complete delusion. 


Please describe your conception in details - we can compare solutions 
based on technical merits.
 	Best Regards,
 			Janos Mohacsi

> 
> Pars
> 
>  
>
>       Bert
>
>        
>
>       From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
>       Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:54 PM
>       To: Pars Mutaf
>       Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>       Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
> 
>  
> 
> Wasn't this what the Internet was supposed to be? I'm tempted to ask how old you are, but I don't want to be rude.
> 
> As the Monty Python would put it: 'You see, the key is in the name - Inter - net(work)'
> 
> :-)
> 
> cheers
> 
> Carlos
> 
> 
> 
>