Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:17:56 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, "James Wyatt" <jwyatt@rwsystems.net> Cc: <FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Racoon Problem & Cisco Tunnel Message-ID: <000901c0abe1$8b73fe80$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <200103131633.LAA73676@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Garrett Wollman >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 8:33 AM >To: James Wyatt >Cc: FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: RE: Racoon Problem & Cisco Tunnel > > ><<On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:37:23 -0600 (CST), James Wyatt ><jwyatt@rwsystems.net> said: > >> If the world ever decides to jump to IPv6, all the server folks have to >> renumber as well. How is this all supposed to happen without massive >> outages and downtime? - Jy@ > >The world will never ``jump to IPv6'', as you put it. Rather, more >and more IPv6-capable systems will be deployed, and IS management will >gain comfort with the availability of the technology -- particularly >once they have cell-phones running it -- until at some point the cost >of adopting IPv6 becomes less than the cost of maintaining a twisted, >hyper-complex multi-layer-NATted corporate network infrastructure. > >The main barrier to adoption of IPv6 right now is Cisco. While there No, I don't think it's Cisco. Cisco is a customer responsive company - if any large corporate customers had been demanding IPv6, they would have put support for it in IOS ages ago. And, Cisco has a LOT of large powerful corporate customers. The main barrier is the incredible amount of administrative work that needs to be done to switch over. It's not a comfort level thing. It's more a thing of "I have a site that has about 90% of the hosts PC's and 10% of the hosts things that printservers, hubs and other special equipment that's IPv4 and there's no firmware from those manufacturers to support IPv6, and that special equipment represents about 50% of the capital investment in technology in the company, and it's all working fine right now" I've been through a number of customer renumbering projects. In almost all of them, we spend 90% of the time renumbering on 10% of the equipment. If nets were just PC's it would be easy. It's all the rest of it that's the problem. And, that's just a renumber from public number ranges that the customer can't use anymore to RFC1918, ie: IPv4 to IPv4. >is a test release of IOS available which supports IPv6, it will >probably be another few years before even a large minority of deployed >routers support it. As a matter of fact, Cisco is steadily losing ground in the SOHO routing market. It's easy to upgrade IOS in the large corporations with Cisco equipment but SOHO is different. I think your putting far too much trust on Cisco's ability to dictate standards in the TCP/IP routing market. That was true several years ago, but today it's only true on the Internet core and the large corporations. Cisco has shown themselves to be willing to give up the small routing market and is doing so as fast as they can. In 5 years unless Cisco reverses this, there will be more total non-Cisco routers in the world than Cisco routers. Then instead of getting ONE behemoth routing company to support IPv6 (and a well-funded one at that) your going to have to get TEN smaller routing companies (like LinkSys and NetGear and a host of smaller ones) to support IPv6. I do agree with the view of IPv6 being first implemented in the leaf-node sites and only when most of them have switched over, doing it in the core itself. However, don't think that getting a single routing company, Cisco, to start doing it is going to do much, espically when that routing company has a smaller and smaller percentage of the smaller leaf-node sites every passing day. The computer market is full of large corporate initatives that have not been adopted by the general computing industry because they weren't applicable to the majority of sites. In fact, if you talk to the marketers at Intel you will find that today there is a larger amount of sales and a larger installed base of Intel CPU's to the under-50-employees corporations than to the bigger corporations. Those smaller sites aren't filled with IT managers that are getting warm fuzzies about IPv6 on cell phones, most don't even have IT managers at all. If you want to switch over the Internet to IPv6, the key is going to be figuring out how to get the SOHO market to do it, not the larger IT manager-managed corporations. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000901c0abe1$8b73fe80$1401a8c0>