RES: IPv6 tranisition issues

Only one more significative improvement:
IPv6 header provides more easy to routers.  Besides, I believe that routers and firewalls do your true work more easily and more faster when they dont take care of these "pacthes" like NAT. 

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Thakur, Anand [mailto:[email protected]]
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 27 de dezembro de 2002 10:03
Para: Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Assunto: RE: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues


I totally agree. Plus not going for IPV6 would be like " I already have a
intel486 processor machine which is working fine why should i go for a
pentium?" :-) It is better to be future proof always. 
i believe patchworks like CIDR and NAT will stumble when millions of mobile
handsets start to access the internet.

regards
Anand Thakur
HCL Perot Systems (A SEI CMM Level 5 Company)
Plot No 3, Sector 125, NOIDA (UP)-201301, India
* Tel  +91 120 4432755-79, X3348 (EPABX)
mobile:9811748512

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Marcelo Barbosa Lima [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent:	Friday, December 27, 2002 5:24 PM
> To:	[email protected]; Thakur, Anand
> Cc:	[email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject:	RES: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
> 
> 
>   Hi Nick,
> 
>  You are forgetting the mobility. Support to mobility in IPv6 is more
> optimized and stateless autoconfiguration resources are a step ahead (if
> AH is used, is enough secure. ARP and gratitious ARP are problems).
> Routing optimization in IPv4 is very insecure for me. This feature is
> fundamental to 3GPP develepment (roamming between differents networks),
> por example. Besides, ICMPv6 (authenticated ping, for example) and routing
> protocols can be more secure. NAT provides many problems to IPSec. So,
> IPv6 provides many advantages against IPv4... 
> regards,
> 
>    Marcelo Lima
>    
> 
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Enviada em: sexta-feira, 27 de dezembro de 2002 09:34
> Para: Thakur, Anand
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Assunto: Re: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
> 
> 
> Thank you all for your inputs on this. The points I presented were
> summarized from one of my presentation slides on IPv6 and issues faced
> in IPv6 transition. I understand all the points presented and am fully
> behind IPv6. It is when you are proposing on a regulatory/governmental
> level, there has to be some substance to the claims and rebuttals.
> Hence, I am looking for a good academic/technical paper on the 'Great
> IPv4 vs. IPv6 Debate'.
> 
> This is slightly pro-IPv4. Basically IPv6 addresses 4 main points:
> 
> 1.Address space. For IPv6 opponents there are patches like CIDR, NAT,
> DHCP, etc to address this issue. Besides 3GPP (which is not here as
> forecasted), there is no other killer-application that is reason enough
> to look at IPv6 seriously. So in the mean time why rush is the question
> -'if it ain't broke, why fix it'.
> 
> 2. QoS. Beside the obvious differences in the respective IP header
> labels, QoS implementation between the two are rather similar. In fact
> QoS flow tagging in both IPv4 (TOS) and IPv6 (Flow) are similar where an
> 8-bit label is used (although IPv6 allows for a 24-bit label) so as for
> flow tagging to operate in both environments. Both protocols will
> support MPLS tagging (TE/QoS/IP-VPN) and RSVP for QoS implementations.
> Of course the IPv6 QoS solution is more streamlined and much improved,
> but is this reason enough to switch to/develop applications/etc in IPv6
> now?
> 
> 3. Multicast/Anycast. With the exception of anycast and the major
> improvement on multicast in IPv6, other advancements other than
> addressing structure/capabilities again is not a valid enough reason for
> IPv6 multicast support. Anycast is still being further developed. Areas
> that need addressing are router-processing power (for the additional
> multicast tables) and the management/set-up/operation of IGMP is complex
> amongst others.
> 
> 4. Security. Beside the inclusion of AH and ESP at the IP level instead
> of at the higher layers, there are only slight differences between IPSec
> implementations between IPv4 and IPv6. IPSec, which is optional on IPv4,
> does not ensure an 'end-to-end' implementation unlike the mandatory
> version on IPv6. But is this realy necessary/important?
> 
> With the exception of points 1 and 4, there is no real application for
> QoS and multicast in the big bad public Internet. These are usually
> restricted to within a closed network or in an R&E environment. So John
> Q. Public does not really appreciate/understand/use these in everyday
> applications.
> 
> These are some of the questions (beside the ones I highlighted) that
> need to be answered when asked 'Why now?'. Of course these IPv4 issues
> will one day need to be addressed, but not today. Perhaps in the future
> and perhaps there will be another next generation IP to solve these.
> 
> So with points like this put forward, maybe we might be looking at
> promoting/developing IPv7/8/9......
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -nick/