Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Wed Jul 15 23:58:18 UTC 2015


In message <55A6EE2B.5040201 at ttec.com>, Joe Maimon writes:
> joel jaeggli wrote:
> > On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> >>
> >> The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the
> >> community who created it.
> >
> > joel at ubuntu:~$ uname -a
> > Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15
> > 04:01:04 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >
> > joel at ubuntu:~$  sudo ifconfig eth0:0 240.0.0.1/24
> > SIOCSIFADDR: Invalid argument
> > SIOCSIFFLAGS: Cannot assign requested address
> > SIOCSIFNETMASK: Cannot assign requested address
> >
> 
> So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to 
> make it so?

No.  The test was there before the requests which is why people
were saying that it wouldn't work without upgrading lots of machines.

> Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it 
> with use at your own risk status? Even now?

No, but you couldn't assign the addresses to users for another
decade or more without there being problems.

We still haven't removed all the class based code out there and
that is 20 years now.  For quite a while one had to be careful to
not use the first and last blocks when subnetting.  The use of
addresses ending in .0 (class C) or .0.0 (class B) is still
problematic with supernets.

> > now go test that on every exisitng ipv4 device on the planet that's not
> > getting an upgrade.
> 
> Thanks to (continuing) shortsightedness that course of action is still 
> foreclosed.
> 
> >
> > it doesn't extend the life of ipv4 usefully and it wouldn't have if we
> > started 10 years ago either.
> 
> You dont know either of those.
> 
> However, by continuing to insist on them, you make it so.

Do you think adding 2 more years would have done anything except
let people procrastinate for 2 more years before starting to deploy
IPv6?

Vendors have had 15 years to develop products that support IPv6.
That was more than enough time.  We added IPv6 support to BIND back
in the 1990's.  DHCP has supported IPv6 just about as long.  F was
running on IPv6 years before the root servers officially supported
IPv6.

Just in time is nice if it works but it hasn't.  We have people
that are only contactable over IPv6 because they are now behind
CGNs but everyone doesn't have IPv6 available to them.  That is a
failure of the industry to deploy IPv6 in time.

> > the goal in stringing along ipv4 is to not hose your current or
> > potential customers rather than prevent still more obstacles to their
> > success.
> >
> > joel
> >
> 
> At this point, you are running the risk of conflating your goals with 
> your technical objections to the goals of others. And this has always 
> been the real underlying issue.
> 
> Joe
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org



More information about the NANOG mailing list