[BBLISA] anybody doing IPv6 for real operations?/possible presentation topic

[Internaut at Large]

Greetings,

On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 20:01 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> I think the easiest way to play around is to install netbsd.  But I know
> of nothing quite turnkey at this minute.  Users come after ISPs on the
> install tree.

Right, us peons, the ones who want servers, who want IPv6, are the ones
who are the last to get what we want, right?  Thanks!  Dean this isn't
an ISP list, it's a USER list.  Think about your target audience for the
nonce?

Of course, the end-users get it last, except we are the ones who want it
now, and are interested in deploying it now, and we, like when we built
FIDO-net, are willing to build our own bubbles, our own
interconnections, and soon you paternalistic ISPs might find yourselves
routed around by those of us with some wire, and some desire to send
bits to each other.

Think about it.

So, we can't run the OS we want to run, simply to make the ISP's lives
easier?  How is that coal furnace working for you?

> BTW, I didn't invent this.  This was already thought about in documents
> like RFC1629.  We didn't follow through on this because the IPV6 crowd
> convinced people that they had lots of bells and whistles and that they
> could succeed faster than ISO. They didn't deliver on either of those
> promises.  Time to go with plan A.

Right, what of your pet bells and whistles weren't included in?  (or
have I asked that before, and been entirely ignored?)

> But before CLNS can be deployed to end users, there are also some
> practical things to attend to and bring uptodate. For example, URIs are
> now pervasive in a way that wasn't considered in 1994;  a lot of
> applications assume TCP or UDP behaviors beyond socket creation.  To
> accomodate those assumptions one would have to transport TCP and UDP
> protocols over CNLP to make it easy to transport existing applications
> from IPV4 to CLNP.  We need dns naming for CLNP.  We need a NAT from
> IPV4 to CLNS.  But this could all be done in the next two years, while
> ISP in the meantime deploy IS-IS.

So, you want us to build the ... umm ... IPv6 infrastructure for you,
again, just using your pet, instead of what already is?  Do you want us
to do backups on beta-max tape as well?  We can build a robot for that,
right?  Just because your beta-max player is shiny for you?

-dkap

> 
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, John Stoffel wrote:
> 
> > >>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com> writes:
> > 
> > Dean> By contrast, IS-IS handles multiple protocols in one process with less
> > Dean> overhead.  Configuaration & route distribution is always consistent.  
> > Dean> There are no inter-op problems, and we know its going to work.  Its a
> > Dean> no-brainer to use IS-IS instead of OSPF4 and OSPF6 together.  So once
> > Dean> you see that no brainer, the next obvious no-brainer is to use CLNS
> > Dean> instead of IPV6.  Once again, all the benefits of IPV6, none of the
> > Dean> drawbacks.  There are no inter-op worries with CLNS.
> > 
> > Ok, so how would I, as an end-user, deploy CLNS on my home machine so
> > I can use this super-duper protocol?  From the reading I just did in
> > Wikipedia, it doesn't look possible at all.
> > 
> > While it may be superior of IPv6, it's not going to be of any use if
> > it can't be deployed by end-users and regular users.
> > 
> > I don't know, I'm not an ISP person at all.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
>