From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 5 13:24:05 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A98106566C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:24:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andy@xecu.net) Received: from mg4.xecu.net (mg4.xecu.net [216.127.136.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB5A8FC15 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:24:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andy@xecu.net) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mg4.xecu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E41941C787; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:24:04 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at xecu.net Received: from mg4.xecu.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mg4.xecu.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8dAC9flAJysU; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.xecu.net (shell.xecu.net [216.127.136.216]) by mg4.xecu.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39DEE41C851; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:22:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:22:11 -0500 (EST) From: Andy Dills To: Mark Andrews In-Reply-To: <200803041307.m24D7uqE057842@drugs.dv.isc.org> Message-ID: <20080305082031.E37745@shell.xecu.net> References: <200803041307.m24D7uqE057842@drugs.dv.isc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:24:05 -0000 On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: > It would be better to remove the option all together. IPv6 > is no longer a protocol under development. There is no > need to make it optional any more. Having it there really > sends the wrong signal. With all due respect, let's face a couple of facts. IPv4 is going to be the primary protocol for several years to come. There are a few critical reasons, and few people like to point out just how naked the emperor is: - Providing IPv6 currently (and for the forseeable future) provides no return on investment (ROI). Service Providers can't make more money with IPv6, businesses do not get any sort of competitive or perceived advantage from deploying IPv6, and end users certainly don't want to deal with it. - To route IPv6 with the same features and packet forwarding rate as with IPv4, nearly every network will be forced to purchase expensive router upgrades with no other real benefit beyond IPv6 connectivity (which again provides no ROI to justify the capex). Nobody is going to do forklift upgrades just for IPv6, but as routers get normally upgraded IPv6 functionality will indeed slowly expand. - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. - IPv4 address spaces will eventually transition to a market commodity model, providing a financial incentive that will encourage significant optimization and provide motive for providers to audit their allocations, and for businesses to part with IP space that they no longer properly utilize. The cost of acquiring IPv4 space will be less than the cost of upgrading to IPv6. Therefore, given a lack of ROI or sufficient technological motivation, and given the significant potential for optimization of existing IPv4 space both via technology and financial incentive, I see a minimum of five years before IPv6 is common. In the meantime, I'd like to only enable IPv6 on IPv6 enabled networks. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---