DoD IP Space

John Curran jcurran at
Mon Feb 15 15:33:43 UTC 2021

On 15 Feb 2021, at 2:01 AM, Mark Andrews <marka at> wrote:
> ...
> Complain to your vendors about not implementing RFC 8305, RFC 6724, and
> RFC 7078.  RFC 8305 or RFC6724 + RFC 7078 would fix your issue.
> Thats Happy Eyeballs and tuneable address selection rules.

Mark - 

	You’ve properly pointed out IPv6 can indeed be readily & safely deployed today using modern equipment that supports a reasonable transition approach… full agreement there. 

	Interestingly enough, you’ve also pointed out the not-so-secret reason why it's taken so long to get sizable deployment of IPv6 – that is, despite us knowing that we needed "a straightforward transition plan” on day one that documented how to move from IPv4 to IPng (aka IPv6), we opted in 1995 to select a next generation protocol which lacked any meaningful transition plan and instead left that nasty transition topic as an exercise for the reader and/or addressed by postulated outputs from newly-defined working groups…  thus the underlying reason for the lost decades of creative engineering efforts in gap-filling by those who came after and had to actually build working networks and applications using IPv6.

	For what it’s worth, I do think we’re finally 98 or 99% of the way there, but it has resulted some very real costs - rampant industry confusion, loss of standards credibility, etc.  There’s some real lessons to be had here – as one who was in the IP Directorate at the time (and thus sharing in the blame), I know I would have done quite a bit differently, but it’s unclear if there’s been any systematic look-back or institutional learning coming out of the entire experience.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list