How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
toddunder at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 01:37:03 UTC 2015
Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented
late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is
In any case I'm giving up on that conversation. And this whole one. It goes
And this is why v6 is where it is: true believers. Instead of a simple,
practical matter of engineering a transition we got 15 years of advocacy.
It makes the sleazy v4 transfer market look appealing. :)
On Oct 1, 2015 8:59 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I’m not at all tied up in a particular protocol.
> Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is answer this
> simple question:
> How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards compatible
> with existing
> IPv4 hosts requiring no software modification on those hosts? Details
> matter here.
> Handwaving about ASN32 doesn’t cut it.
> If you can’t answer that, there’s really nothing to your argument.
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 17:56 , Todd Underwood <toddunder at gmail.com> wrote:
> this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied up
> his identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage you all
> not to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at
> life, so be your own person.
> this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage. feel free to be principled
> and have technical discussion but insults and attacks really have no place.
> so please just stop and relax.
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 process.
>> Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in the
>> Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes.
>> So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bits
>> of address?
>> Further, what mechanism do you propose for forwarding to the 128 bit
>> destination by
>> looking at the value in the 32 bit field?
>> The closest I can come to a viable implementation of what you propose
>> would be
>> to encapsulate IPv6 packets between IPv6 compatible hosts in an IPv4
>> which is pretty much what 6in4 would be.
>> If you want the end host on the other side to be able to send a reply
>> packet, then
>> it pretty much has to be able to somehow handle that 128 bit reply address
>> to set up the destination for the reply packet, no? (No such requirements
>> for ASN32).
>> Seriously, Todd, this is trolling pure and simple.
>> Unless you have an actual complete mechanism for solving the problem,
>> you’re just
>> doing what you do best… Trolling.
>> Admittedly, most of your trolling has enough comedic value that we laugh
>> and get
>> past it, but nonetheless, let’s see if you have a genuine solution to
>> offer or if this
>> is just bluster.
>> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 16:52 , Todd Underwood <toddunder at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the
>> > embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's
>> > naive and ignorant in a genius way.
>> > Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be
>> > properly done.
>> > This was harder but not impossible. We just chose badly for decades and
>> > we have NAT *and* a dumb migration.
>> > Oh well.
>> > T
>> > On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote:
>> >>> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
>> >> rest
>> >>> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i
>> >>> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
>> >>> learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).
>> >> Would be really interesting to know how you would propose
>> >> squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we
>> >> could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has
>> >> available to save having to move to this new incompatible format.
>> >> :-)
>> >> Matthew
>> >> --
>> >> Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4 at le.ac.uk>
>> >> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services,
>> >> I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United
>> >> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp at le.ac.uk>
More information about the NANOG