Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Yes, Brian said it, it is a much broader scalability problem.

Actually I think it will not make sense to think only in the "bigger" enterprises only, if we realize that it is very possible that even the "smaller" SMEs will wish be multihommed in the near future. Everybody becoming more dependant on Internet connectivity means you really want to pay links with two different providers, even for residential users.

May be not "active/active" connections for the SMEs, but something like main link being FTTH and secondary backup being 5G. So what I call "hybrid" CPEs and then we have the problem of resolving how to router their own PI.
 
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 22/3/22, 2:02, "v6ops en nombre de Bob Hinden" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:

    Brian,

    I should probably know better to respond to this thread, but apparently not :-)

    > On Mar 21, 2022, at 3:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > On 22-Mar-22 10:50, Fred Baker wrote:
    >> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
    >>> On Mar 21, 2022, at 2:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>> 
    >>> "Why didn't those idiots make IPv6 backward-compatible with IPv4?"
    >> To which the obvious answer is “IPv4 isn’t forward compatible with anything. It was designed to be replaced.”

    To add to what Fred said, IPv6 uses the transition mechanism that the Internet Protocol provided, that is the version number.

    > 
    > As has been said, in different words, many times on The Register forums. I think there are several IPv6ists who respond there, under various pseudonyms. (The Register is not a place where many people care to use real names.)
    > 
    > But unfortunately the usual reply is to repeat that we were idiots not to make IPv6 backwards-compatible (often accompanied by one of the many ideas proposed but found impossible in the early 1990s). Either that, or a plaintive "too hard" argument.
    > 
    > I agree with Jordi that multihoming is a genuine impediment. What isn't generally realised is that it's a problem of scale when considering at least 10,000,000 enterprises, much more than it's a problem of IPv6 itself.

    In my view, and I think I am agreeing with Nick said, it’s not a technical problem that would be fixed by a technical feature.   IPv4 works for most enterprises today and they don’t see a need (aka business case) to do anything different.   The Enterprises who are thinking about moving to IPv6 are very large enterprises who can’t live within the limits of private IPv4 space.

    I suspect these are the ones we should be talking to.

    Bob



    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.