IPv6 woes - RFC

Jeroen Massar jeroen at massar.ch
Thu Sep 16 09:38:43 UTC 2021



> On 20210916, at 11:15, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
> On 14 Sep 2021, at 3:46 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at ofcourseimright.com> wrote:
>> ….
>> There is no evidence that any other design choices on the table at the time would have gotten us transitioned any faster, and a lot of evidence and analysis that the exact opposite is more likely.  
> 
> Elliot - 
> 
> If by “design choices” you mean the criteria that we set forth for the new protocol (IPng), then that’s potentially true - it’s fairly challenging to hypothecate what impact different technical criteria would have had on the outcome. 
> 
> If by “design choices” you mean the tradeoffs accepted in selecting a particular candidate protocol and declaring victory, then I’d strongly disagree.  I believe that we had the appropriate technical criteria for IPng (very nicely compiled and edited by Craig Patridge and Frank Kastenholz in RFC1726) and then made conscious decisions to disregard those very criteria in order to “make a decision” & “move forward.”
> 
> All of the IPng proposals where completely deficient with respect to transition capabilities.

Would not have mattered: one has to upgrade a large portion of the code/hardware present in the network anyway.

And ~1995 was a completely different time from 1998, or 2001 let alone 2021 in number of devices and deployment; thus anything one would have guessed would have been off.

The only thing that might have worked is a flag day, but unless some large org sets that in the near future, we'll just have the very very slow death thing that is happening and I bet that IPv4 will nicely outlive us all on this list and the ones that where there when IPng started.

Greets,
 Jeroen



More information about the NANOG mailing list