Re: RE: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn

[JiangSheng 66104 <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Fleischman,

We all work hard to contribute the fast change Internet world. Althrough we may have different opinions from time to time, our ultimate goals are the same, I believe.

I will read and comment on RANGER.

Best regards,

Sheng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:51 pm
Subject: RE: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
To: JiangSheng 66104 <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gert Doering <[e-mail]>, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>,Rémi Després <[e-mail]>, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], "Russert, Steven W" <[e-mail]>

> Sheng,
> 
> I'm glad that our views are congruent. I believe that our shared 
> viewpoint is a reasonable one though I recognize that other 
> vectors are also possible.
> 
> I apologize for my previous long posting. In hindsight, I wish 
> that I had solely stated that because the Internet is likely to 
> face a period of accelerated change in the next few years, with 
> accompanying challenges within the network operations domain, it 
> behooves us to adopt techniques that will help our community 
> weather these anticipated events.
> 
> This is the reason why I personally have been encouraging 
> coworkers to consider RANGER because I believe that it has 
> preserved the original intent of the founders of the Internet in a 
> manner that would enable today's Internet to flourish and evolve 
> during the difficult challenges ahead.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you all would please read and consider 
> RANGER and the new RANGERS I-D and share your insights on those 
> concepts. A strength of our community is the quality of our 
> technical discussions together. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> --Eric Fleischman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JiangSheng 66104 [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:48 PM
> To: Fleischman, Eric
> Cc: Gert Doering; Templin, Fred L; Rémi Després; Brian E 
> Carpenter; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Russert, Steven 
> W; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-
> incremental-cgn
> 
> > end users view networks as a business overhead expense and are 
> > unlikely to needlessly spend money on networking technology 
> without a 
> > solid business motivation to do so. I went on to explain that 
> IPng is 
> > unlikely to be deployed by us end users unless it becomes 
> bundled with 
> > a business requirement, the most compelling of which would be a 
> new 
> > Killer Application that demanded IPv6 capabilities in order to 
> > function.
> 
> Fully agreed. This is particularly true for IPv6 deployment in 
> last ten year - failure to find a killer application. A right 
> business model is actually more important than technology itself.
> 
> > At this current time, IPv6 is very immature and IPv6 deployments 
> have 
> > very high risk when compared to IPv4 for the end user. There are 
> only 
> > negative business reasons for deploying IPv6 at this time (i.e., 
> I can 
> > articulate many compelling business reasons to NOT deploy IPv6 
> but the 
> > only reason to deploy it in the USA today is government decree --
> 
> > which didn't work for OSI and is unlikely to work alone by 
> itself for 
> > IPv6.). There are currently no technical reasons for the end 
> user to 
> > prefer or want IPv6 over IPv4.
> 
> I believe this situation is changed. IPv4 has reached its 
> limitation. End-user will soon find that they could NOT obtain a 
> public IPv4 address and with private IPv4 address (maybe more than 
> one NAT in the way) they were only able to communicate with part 
> of Internet world. ISP has met the problem that they cannot adopt 
> new services due to the lack of public address.
> 
> > Unless this changes in the future, IPv6 will continue to not be 
> > deployed by end users despite the efforts of Apple and Microsoft 
> and 
> > others to ease its adoption. But then, since not all ISPs 
> support IPv6 
> > today and the DFZ Internet is currently unprepared for the BGP 
> scaling 
> > problems that would arise with a mixed IPv4-
> > IPv6 infrastructure this is probably A Good Thing.
> 
> This is a real issue which has been ignored by IPv6 community for 
> years. My guess is IPv6 community does not want to discuss this 
> because it may even more block IPv6 deployment. However, it is 
> time for us to face it and solve it or avaoid it.
> 
> > I personally *HOPE* that IPv6 will become deployed -- after all, 
> I 
> > spent many years helping to create it. But my experience with 
> pre- 
> > TCP/IP protocols (I used to be an SNA and BSC "expert") is that 
> even 
> > if IPv6 becomes widely deployed, IPv4 will endure for a 
> surprisingly 
> > long time (decades).
> 
> Yes, it will be years. I believe the whole internet society has 
> accepted this and be prepared for a 25+ year co-existing period.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sheng
> 
>