[LAC-TF] Fwd: RE: IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz

[Alejandro Acosta]

Hola Fernando,
  Que bueno que sacas este tema a colacion, yo estaba a punto de hacerlo.
  Me recuerda el otro thread de nanog donde solo leyendo uno aprendia
mucho sobre redes, en este caso se aprende mucho sobre la historia de
IPv6, problemas actuales, que se hizo bien o mal en la IETF durante su
desarrollo etc. Yo estoy de acuerdo en muchas cosas y en otras no,
ciertamente IPv6 como esta ahora es como se va a quedar, hay
comentarios que parece que la gente quisiera que IPv6 solucionara
todos sus problemas, cosa que no es -ni sera- asi.
   Lo malo que haya tenido el protocolo en sus inicios ya no se puede
hacer nada, eran los anos 90', imposible era predecir el crecimiento
de Internet y si NAT iba a ser exitoso o no. Es el mismo caso con las
cosas "malas" de IPv4 y su realidad hoy.
  Sobre el articulo original que trajo todo este tema
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/31/ipv6_sucks_for_smes/) dicen
cosas muy ciertas pero una vez mas IPv6 no puede solucionarlo todo. El
punto mas interesante desde mi humilde perspectiva es la parte de
renumbering.
  El link del thread en cuestion, recomendado:
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=48&gid=0&k1=933&k3=11189&tid=1333770254

Saludos,

Alejandro,


On 4/5/12, Fernando Gont <fernando at gont.com.ar> wrote:
> FYI.
>
> Hay un thread mas que interesante en la lista general de la IETF.
> ietf at ietf.org.
>
> Acá reenvío uno de los msgs posteados. Recomiendo leer los de Randy
> Bush, con los que seguramente se van a divertir (o no :-) ) un rato.
>
> Saludos,
> Fernando
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 01:52:33 +0000
> From: Christian Huitema <huitema at microsoft.com>
> To: Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, "ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
>
>> Part of the real problem has been that the IETF failed to carefully
>> study, and take to heart, the operational capabilities which NAT
>> provided (such as avoidance of renumbering, etc, etc), and then
>> _failed to exert every possible effort_ to provide those same capabilities
>> in an equally 'easy to use' way.
>
> I agree with Noel on that one -- as surprising as it may sound. The IETF
> did recognize several problems, from privacy to renumbering to
> multi-homing, but the quality of the proposed solutions has been uneven.
> The IPV6 response to privacy protects the host with privacy addresses,
> but exposes internal network routes. Renumbering works fairly well in
> small networks, but does not provide a replacement for folks who insist
> in hardwiring IP addresses into filters. The response to multi-homing
> requires an additional layer of protocol in the hosts and is probably 15
> years from being deployed.
>
> Of course, NAT does not really solve multi-homing either -- it is one of
> the points where the brittleness is most apparent. But NAT's do hide the
> internals of a network, and do isolate networks from renumbering issues.
> NAT also break lots of applications, which is why so many of us hate
> them. But so do firewalls, and it seems that IPv6 firewalls are
> encouraged. Oh well.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACTF mailing list
> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
>