Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Shipworm Time Frame

From: "Michael Cole" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 1:43:24 -0400

I suspect that the deployment usage time frame of shipworm (or any other 
transition mechanism) will be a lot longer than 5 years. More like 15 to 20 
years. Sybergen's NAT+firewall+gateway product Sygate Office Network, has this 
price structure:

5 users $109.95, 10 users $199.95, 25 users $349.95, 50 users $549.95, 
unlimited users $ 959.95

The price structure for IPv6 gateway+firewall software is likely to be 
similar. This product is also capable of controlling the wireless side of a LAN 
and the firewall is capable of calling for help when under attack, which means 
that companies will want to retain it even if the only thing it is controlling 
is the wireless side of the LAN.

One of the impediments to deployment is money - a lot of companies just do 
not have tons of it like IBM and Microsoft do. Even if we could get 
everybody to install dual stack software and shut down the 4bone, there will 
still be a lot of IPv4 hardware and software in between an ISP point of presence 
and individual workstations.

There is also the problem that essentially ALL of the non-union 
apprenticeship programs are operated by the military which means that it could 
take 15 years to fully deploy IPv6. Because companies want experience and they 
want people to get experience from an invisible gremlin named Not Me, I do not 
see a way around this kind of bottleneck. Education programs will not help 
because companies are adamant that people have education AND experience. 
Companies value experience so much that they do not care if older workers are 
deliberately breaking safety rules or are even going blind.

I am *surprised* that the personal computer (or any other new technology) 
succeeded to any extent whatsoever because companies are so afraid that somebody 
who does not have experience will wreck something. The IBM 370 continued to 
survive well past the time that it became a dinosaur and the same goes for 
COBOL.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Fred L. 
Templin  

To: [email-masked] 

Sent: 9/30/2002 4:25:00 PM 

Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Shipworm 
obfuscation

Christian Huitema wrote:

  and 6over4 is essentially dead

Bound, Jim wrote:

  6OVER4 is DEAD.

  Not enough users use multicast in IPv4 to warrant the business

  investment is my reading for products I work on.

There is (at least) one aspect of 6over4 which can provide benefit to 
future

deployments in mobile ad hoc wireless networks, which will almost 
certainly

deploy IP multicast as a standard feature. I have previously expressed 
my

opinion on this subject in a draft entitled: "Fast Convergence Extension 
for

ISATAP Router Discovery". See:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-ngtrans-isatapext-00.txt 

Very basically, studies have shown that power savings and convergence 
time

tradeoffs exist between base station beaconing and mobile node polling 
for

topology discovery (see proceedings from MobiHoc 2000.) If the mobile 
nodes

poll continuously while base stations remain silent, they burn their 
batteries.

If instead the base stations send periodic beacons, the mobiles can take 
better

advantage of hibernation modes to save their batteries. Since the base 
stations

must beacon periodically, the beacons might as well carry 6over4-encoded 
RFC

2461 Router Advertisements so that mobiles can gain some cursory knowledge 
of

the topology they encounter. (NOTE: the document I mentioned above needs to 
be

revised to discuss authentication mechanisms for mobiles to associate 
with

such beaconing base stations.)

So, the multicast beaconing mechanisms of 6over4 arguably have 
potential

future use. But, the ground-breaking precedent set by 6over4 should 
also

be honored in some way, IMO. Even if we just took the title and some 
rough

structure from the existing document in a (bis), I feel it would give 
proper

acknowledgment to  the past works of others. Plus, the names 
currently used

by some of the other mechanisms we've talked about leave *alot* to be 
desired.

I'm not in love with the name ISATAP, and I'm terrible at coming up with 
new

names as someone else observed. Also (and I hate to say this, Christian), 
I

just can't see myself 3 years from now telling a network engineer to

"Go check the TEREDO Relay".

Fred

[email-masked] 

--- Michael Cole

--- [email-masked] 

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.