From: Scott McGrath (no email)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 11:41:07 EDT
You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing scalability
or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX and
be easier to 'sell' to the financial people.
As I read the spec it makes multi-homing more difficult since you are
expected to receive space only from your SP there will be no 'portable
assignments' as we know them today. If my reading of the spec is
incorrect someone please point me in the right direction.
IPv6's hex based nature is really a joy to work with IPv6 definitely fails
the human factors part of the equation.
Scott C. McGrath
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
> > IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been
> > written
> > as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in
> > under the
> > accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications
> > would
> > not be needed.
>
> IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if it had solved a problem
> that caused significant numbers of end users or large scale ISPs real
> pain. If IPv6 had actually addressed one or more of routing
> scalability, multi-homing, or transparent renumbering all the hand
> wringing about how the Asians and Europeans are going to overtake the
> US would not occur. Instead, IPv6 dealt with a problem that, for the
> most part, does not immediately affect the US market but which
> (arguably) does affect the other regions. I guess you can, if you
> like, blame it on the accountants...
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
|
|
|