Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: nsp: ipv6

Internet transparency (Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion)

 

 

nsp ipv6 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


brian.e.carpenter at gmail

Nov 21, 2011, 12:27 PM

Post #1 of 2 (422 views)
Permalink
Internet transparency (Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion)

On 2011-11-21 20:22, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 23:13, Matija Grabnar wrote:
>> Well "the users don't want end-to-end" is an appeal to authority,
>> too.
>
> Sure, you can look at it that way if you want to. My actual intention is
> to get the IPv6 kool-aid drinkers to look at what people have been
> saying for years and draw their own conclusions from it.
>
>> And I think it misses the point. The vast majority of users
>> doesn't understand the issues involved in "end-to-end" vs NAT to NAT
>> vs network to network VPN. They just want to do their jobs.
>
> This much I agree with.
>
>> The question is, which is in the long run, the most effective way of
>> enabling them to do what they need to do?
>
> No, it isn't. And this is a key point. The question is, what solutions
> will corporate IT administrators accept, and why?

Corporate IT departments are generally speaking the enemies of
innovation, which seriously erodes my interest in their desires.
The same goes for the preference of some service providers for
walled gardens, which helps their selfish commercial interests
rather than the ability of their users to access new services.

Yes, there is a tussle between the universal deployment of IPv6 global
address space and these conservative forces who prefer a second-class
opaque Internet. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the
implied scope of this list.

Brian


dougb at dougbarton

Nov 21, 2011, 1:04 PM

Post #2 of 2 (387 views)
Permalink
Re: Internet transparency (Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion) [In reply to]

On 11/21/2011 12:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Corporate IT departments are generally speaking the enemies of
> innovation,

No argument there.

> which seriously erodes my interest in their desires.

The problem is that if we don't make IPv6 sufficiently interesting, it
won't be adopted. So we need to understand what makes them tick so that
we can address those needs, or create a sufficiently interesting
educational program to overcome the truly inappropriate inertia. Either
way, choosing to ignore them is not going to be an effective strategy.

> The same goes for the preference of some service providers for
> walled gardens, which helps their selfish commercial interests
> rather than the ability of their users to access new services.

Yes, I agree with you here. Our only recourse for this situation is to
make it easier for providers that want to do the right thing so that
customers can vote with their feet.

> Yes, there is a tussle between the universal deployment of IPv6 global
> address space and these conservative forces who prefer a second-class
> opaque Internet. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the
> implied scope of this list.

Fair enough. I was actually thinking that last night's exchange with Ted
was veering into the advocacy category, so I'm happy to let this topic go.


Doug

--

"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
"Too practical."

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/

nsp ipv6 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.