IPv6 Pain Experiment

Mon Oct 7 21:26:25 UTC 2019

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:34 AM Michel Py <michel.py at tsisemi.com> wrote:
> > William Herrin wrote :
> > I want to divert from the current flame war to make my biennial
semi-serious reminder that it was at least theoretically possible to
> > expand the IPv4 address space rather than make a whole new protocol.
That we did not do so was a failure of imagination.
> > http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
>
> That could have worked. Eventually, some form of IPv4 with "just" more
bits could surface, but it will take a decade or more.
> When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how long
ago.

2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread
titled "The myth of IPv6-IPv4 interoperation." On one side of the argument,
folks saying that the need to manage two configurations impairs IPv6's
deployment. On the other, an individual whose thesis was the IPv6 could not
have been designed to be backwards compatible with IPv4 in a way that
required no new configuration, just incremental, backward-compatible
software upgrades.

-Bill

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191007/6d7ad916/attachment.html>