Their cost/benefit analysis was all wrong.
Posted Jan 31, 2011 0:51 UTC (Mon) by khim
In reply to: IPv6 *is* like AMD
Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
My point was that the IETF wasn't so naive as to think that the world would move to a new protocol simply because it was "the right thing to do". Their mistake was in misjudging the perceived value that IPv6 had over IPv4.
Their mistake was in overestimating interest and underestimating price. Repeatedly.
The initial plan called for the upgrade of everything on ISP level - the idea was that customers will push the ISPs and they will install IPv6-capable hardware/software. Of course there are huge number of people who want "circa-1992 Internet" but few of them care enough to endlessly pester ISPs. And since for ISP IPv6 is pure headache without any gain they just ignore these people anyway. The fact that the people who felt "little transition pain" in this scenario and people who benefited from the transition were different people doomed that plan.
The next plan provided end-to-end connectivity to some people. To the ones who have "white" IPv4 address - it was not done as easy and elegantly as in DJB's plan, but it was done. Good idea? Nope: the people with "white" IPv4 address are precisely the people who don't need IPv6 at all! It's kinda hard to ask someone to feel "a little pain" and get end-to-end connectivity if said someone already have end-to-end connectivity!
The next plan was the most sane one: it provided connectivity to people who are behind NAT. These are the people who really need/want IPv6! Sadly it took too long to develop this plan: it works only with UDP-punchable NATs and by the time it was usable most NATs were multiple-layers stateful NATs. So this plan failed as well.
What next? Well, one way will be to design something usable for the people with multiple layers of stateful NATs - and/or wait for the new wave of users with intrinsic IPv6 support (LTE users, for example are supposed to be like that).
But the key are new users, not the existing users! It's obvious:
1. If explosion of the Internet continues then new users will outnumber old users very soon - and if explosion is finished then we can forget about IPv6 altogether.
2. New users need to setup everything anyway, they need to fill the papers, call the support, etc. They may as well do something extra to gain that end-to-end connectivity.
3. ISPs need to setup new hardware/software to support new users anyway (if there are enough of them, of course), they may add IPv6 to the mix if enough new users will complain that it's slow and unreliable (but it must work for them or else they'll not know how cool it is).
This is why DJB's plain is so crazy: it introduces additional complexity to the IPv6 for the sake of minor convenience of some people who are not part of the solution to the "IPv6 deployment problem" at all!
to post comments)