Re: [ipv6-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support

[David Conrad <david.conrad@localhost]

Dennis,

On 11/8/07 9:22 AM, "Dennis Lundstrom" dennislun@localhost wrote:
> I believe that the biggest obstacle here, is education, and scheduling.

While education and scheduling are issues, I suspect they're more symptoms
than causes.  From my perspective the real problem is that there is no
commercial incentive to drive IPv6 adoption.  Simply, IPv6 provides nothing
of value to people with money over IPv4. The theory now appears to be that
exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool will mean that the "killer IPv6 app" will
be lower cost IP addresses, however even with very expensive IPv4 addresses,
it isn't clear to me the cost of deploying IPv6 will still be lower than
IPv4+NAT.

> Much of our economy is based on resources, that we will eventually one  day
> run out on. Looking at the sky-rocketing oil-prices. I doubt that we want the
> same  thing happening to IPv4.

Not sure what we can do to stop it.

> though we can set up policy against third party trade of address-space.

Creating such a policy by itself will simply mean the registration databases
become useless as people go outside the traditional systems to trade
addresses.

> This will most likely happen on an organized level anyway. The thing
> is, If we draw parallels to the oil industry. Let's face it,we got the
> technology today to quit our dependency of IPv4.

An interesting analogy.  Yes, we have the technology, but what is the
incentive to change?  How do you go about redeploying a widely deployed
infrastructure critical to national and international economies,
particularly when the proposed replacement isn't backwards compatible?

> Another big issue is IPv6 support in SOHO market. More home-use IP-
> enabled equipment need to support IPv6 out of the box.

And if they did?  Where is the IPv6 content folks would connect to?  Why
would those content providers spend the money to support IPv6 since
everybody can connect their content via IPv4?

We've boxed ourselves in quite nicely. We've created a new protocol that
does not interoperate with the old protocol, implying we have to redeploy
the entire infrastructure, but we've provided no incentives to actually
drive that redeployment.

"Oops".

Regards,
-drc