IPv6 woes - RFC

Mon Sep 13 22:22:45 UTC 2021

On 9/13/21 2:52 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush <randy at psg.com 
> <mailto:randy at psg.com>> wrote:
>
>     real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained.  the transition plan was
>     dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years.  the 93
>     transition mechanisms were desperate add-ons when v4 did not go away.
>     and dual stack does not scale, as it requires v4 space proportional to
>     deployed v6 space.
>
>
> What I find most peculiar about this whole rant (not just yours but 
> the whole thread) is that I may be the only one who found implementing 
> IPv6 with dual stack completely trivial and a non issue? There is no 
> scale issue nor any of the other rubbish.

I agree on the host side. It didn't even occur to me at the time I was 
looking at it that it would be any sort of issue -- we had all kinds of 
other protocols on our boxes like SMB, Netware, DEC LAT, etc. We would 
have done it if customers told us they wanted it, just like we 
implemented ACL's not realizing why they were especially important. Back 
in the early days all routing was done in software so it wouldn't have 
been hard to squeeze v6 in. All of that changed when the forwarding 
plane got cast in silicon though which made it far, far more difficult 
to get anybody to stick their necks out vs a skunk works software 
project. But before that it would have been completely doable if 
somebody was willing to throw money at it.

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210913/9eaaf7e9/attachment.html>