[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [egov-ms] Groups - Making the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 -removing the barriers (IPv6_Guidance Doc_v1.0.pdf) uploaded
Hi John, My concerns are several fold. First, the subject matter is far outside the remit and subject matter expertise of OASIS. The information can be exchanged on a "wet string" as far as OASIS is concerned. Second, IP protocols and their respective merits have been a complex and highly controversial subject with divergent viewpoints for more than 20 years. Third, the OASIS treatment ignores these complexities and makes simplistic political assertions that arguably make the network protocol operations problems worse rather than better. Some substantial clues include 1) the profound lack of use of IPv6 after 15 years, 2) the substantial amount of literature on the subject arguing against IPv6, and 3) the emergence of very important alternatives like LISP that are being implemented. The definitive paper here on deployment metrics is Geoff Huston's APNIC/RIPE presentation showing actual IPv6 use as 0.4% today. It is not for me to do the research here and develop text. This should have been done in the drafting process rather than simply passing along the views of some OECD committee - which frankly is meaningless in the real world of network operations. Alternatively one might want to check out: http://lisp4.cisco.com/lisp_tech.html At this point, if no one else cares, OASIS can simply live with this as IMHO very bad guidance, and an example of subject matter that OASIS should avoid. ...and if anyone thinks I'm overstating the concerns, you might take a look at http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46743 (There are plenty more like this.) --tony On 6/22/2010 7:06 AM, John Borras wrote: > May I suggest that if you want us to re-consider the content and messages of the paper that you provide us with some alternative text, and pointers to published material that contradicts the wide advice on this topic and in particular the recent report from the OECD/ITAC committee. We will re-consider anything that you provide and include an alternative and balanced LISP view if we feel it appropriate. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]