Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Sat Jan 13 02:05:35 UTC 2024

Wow... There is some serious learning about the internet to be done here!

When Randy was deploying IPv6 across the IIJ backbone, I was running around
in kindergarten. I didn't even know what the internet was back then.

Amazing what can happen in 26 years...

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 09:35, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:

> Hi, Randy:
>
> 1)    " ... dual-stack mess ...   it was intended. it was the original
> transition plan. ":
>
>     Perhaps you are too young to realize that the original IPv6 plan was
> not designed to be backward compatible to IPv4, and Dual-Stack was
> developed (through some iterations) to bridge the transition between IPv4
> and IPv6? You may want to spend a few moments to read some history on this.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-12 17:34)
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-12 00:11, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> We don't need to extend IPv4, we need to figure out why we are in this
> dual-stack mess, which was never intended, and how to get out of it.
>
> it was intended.  it was the original transition plan.  like many things
> about ipv6, it could have been a bit better thought out.
>
> randy
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-2764172948748324147_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240113/7b8d84d7/attachment.html>