DoD IP Space

Geoff Mulligan nanog08 at
Mon Feb 15 19:10:09 UTC 2021

Actually John - IPng started out being called IPv7, but we caught the 
mistake and renamed it IPv6.  Whew :-)


On 2/15/21 8:33 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2021, at 2:01 AM, Mark Andrews <marka at 
> <mailto: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.
> FYI,
> /John

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

More information about the NANOG mailing list