Subject: Re: a response to "A Simple Solution for IPv6 Multihoming"

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:19:35 -0400 (EDT)

Jim Bound <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]
|It is nitpicking but thats what I do as an
|engineer.  Its like my performance ranting in IPv6 when folks want to
|add a little code here and a little code here.

Indeed, as an engineer myself I am very sympathetic to this.  Unfortunately,
as IPv6 nears deployment (or failure) we may have to be more salesmen than
engineers.  Sigh.

|One reason I rant is a business reason.  If IPv6 does not perform as
|equally as fast as IPv4 it is dead.

I would go beyond this to say that if IPv6 makes obtaining certain
functionality significantly harder than it was under IPv4 the effect
may be even worse than a mere speed deficit.  (Increasing hardware
capacity can quickly make up for minor fixed-cost overhead, but it
will probably never bring back lost functionality.)  Of course, my
expectations may not correspond well to the current mass market.
Although I don't pretend to be a pioneer in the area (my hands-on
experience with tcp/ip protocol implementation didn't really start
until ~1982), the level of flexibility available to end users in those
"old days" probably spoiled me.  As a result, I have a strong negative
reaction when I see such services as multi-homing, session stability
and the like being viewed as special cases likely available only to
the few/big/rich customers.

Now as I said, I may be spoiled.  Over the course of the 17 or so years that
I've been developing tcp/ip stacks and related protocols I've observed the
incredible changes in the field, the emergence of the ISP industry, the
beginnings of the web, etc.  The expectations of mass market end users have
certainly changed (hey, there was no mass market not too long ago!).  In some
ways those expectations have increased, e.g., who would have thought that you
would be able to get information from just about any interesting company by
typing its name between a www and a com?  In other--perhaps more technical--ways
those expectations have decreased.  To many a net connection is a dialup with a
dynamic IP address.  If something breaks you just keep re-dialing or maybe you
reinstall Windows.  Only the techies (and maybe old timers) worry about 24/7
connectivity and multi-homing their little networks.  Well, maybe the techies,
the old timers, and big business.  Or is it little business too?  Or is it maybe
everyone once we become even more net-dependent?  I certainly don't know the
answer, and, more importantly I don't know what potential users think the
answer is (if they even think about the question).  I know I'll always advocate
making as much flexibility as possible available at all levels while trying to
avoid implementation limits that support a high-price-by-scarcity market.  But
that's just me...

				Dan Lanciani
				[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Greg vdG <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:26:24 -0600

Concerning Dan's view here, I may dissagree.

Yes, as far as I, and most other professionals who understand what they are working
with, are concerned, performance mattters.

But here we are talking about "selling" this product. We are selling it to the end
user, who knows little about how it works, or even that it's there. Granted there
are the more educated users out there, but markets do not catter to them, markets
catter to whichever group will be spending the money.

People thought windows95 was the greatest thing, upgraded to it, spent billions,
even though they didn't understand it. Hell, people didn't even know if they needed
it. It was 13% slower than Windows 3.x. The same happened for windows98, which in
turn was 8% slower than Win95. Reduced performance will not be a hangup unless it
hits figures above a 30-50% reduction in speed which so far we are well clear of.

It's quite simple, people wil buy what is sold to them. As far as the manufacturers
picking up IPv6, things seem to be in OK shape. Most large manufacturers are
already develloping early support for their platforms, this includes Sun, SGI,
Cisco, DEC, IBM, Novell, and many more.

I do agree, however, that the loss of functionality presents a much larger impact
than performance. Granted, some features have been removed. But we must remember
why these features where removed. They were either inneficient, or seldom used, or
simply broken. Remember also that new features have been added, some of which I
view as tremendous. While I miss riding my bike where I could do power skids with
my rear tire, I much prefer driving to work in a car.

IPv4 simply cannot carry on forever. So, while IPv6 (in my humble opinion) may not
be comming to the end user for quite some time, it is coming...

Greg

> as IPv6 nears deployment (or failure) we may have to be more salesmen than

*snip*