How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")
bzs at world.std.com
Sun Oct 4 17:52:39 UTC 2015
>From the time we began to take the idea of an address runout seriously
in the early 90s to the actual address runout which would be just
about now new priorities arose such as spam which I'll say really got
going in the late 90s.
There were others such as the potential routing table explosion which
no doubt got passing notice from the start but I think it's safe to
say has been looming more and more as a potential big problem in
And security & privacy which perhaps something like an IPv6 couldn't
much solve, most of that is higher in the stack, but then again maybe
not. Didn't OSI have some sort of L2 credentials passing?
That's all difficult to debate if for no other reason than one says
"security" and several different definitions and priorities pop into
people's heads ranging from low-level issues such as ddos and spoofing
and simple sniff and MITM avoidance to what it might mean to a bank
security officer or credit card undewriter or an individual at
risk. And spam and phishing and all that. Oh and toss intellectual
property rights management on the fire because it casts such a lovely
This has been a moving target and a canvas on which to paint each now
and evolving challenge of a technology which has grown into ubiquity.
Around 1992 when IPv6 was just picking up steam the net engineering
community was pretty happy if an email got delivered in well under a
minute and an FTP went smoothly. Words like congestion and route
flapping could take up entire career paths.
I think we need to stop replaying history like what if there weren't a
Russian winter and just press forward.
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
More information about the NANOG