IPv6 woes - RFC

Fri Sep 24 17:53:03 UTC 2021

Well, I see IPv6 as double failure really. First, IPv6 itself is too
different from IPv4. What Internet wanted is IPv4+ (aka IPv4 with
bigger address space, likely 64bit). Of course we could not extend IPv4,
so having new protocol is fine. It should just fix problem (do we have other
problems I am not aware of with IPv4?) of address space and thats it.
Im happy with IPv4, after 30+ years of usage we pretty much fixed all 
problems we had.

The second failure is adoption. Even if my IPv6 hate is not rational,
adoption of IPv6 is crap. If adoption would be much better, more IPv4
could be used for legacy networks ;) So stuborn guys like me could be happy 
too ;)

As for details, that list is just my dream IPv6 protocol ;)
But lets talk about details:
- Loopback on IPv6 is ::1/128
  I have setups where I need more addresses there that are local only.
  Yeah I know, we can put extra aliases on interfaces etc.. but its extra
  work and not w/o problems
- IPv6 Link Local is forced.
  I mean, its always on interface, nevermind you assign static IP.
  LL is still there and gets in the way (OSPFv3... hell yeah)
- ULA space, well.. its like RFC1918 but there are some issues with it
  (or at least was? maybe its fixed) like source IP selection on with 
  multiple addresses.
- Neighbor Discovery protocol... quite a bit problems it created.
  What was wrong w/ good old ARP? I tought we fixed all those problems
  already like ARP poisoning via port security.. etc
- NAT is there in IPv6 so no futher comments
- DHCP start to get working on IPv6.. but it still pain sometimes

And biggest problem, interop w/ IPv4 was completly failure.
Currently we have best Internet to migrate to new protocol.
Why? Because how internet become centralized. Eyeball networks
just want to reach content. E2E communication is not that much needed.
We have games and enhusiast, but those can pay extra for public IPv4.
Or get VPN/VPS.

And end comment. I do NOT want to start some kind of flame war here.
Yeah I know, Im biased toward IPv4. If something new popups, I want it 
better than previous thingie (a lot) and easier or at least same level of 
complications, but IPv6 just solves one thing and brings a lot of 
complexity.

The fact is, IPv6 failed. There are probably multiple reasons for it.
Do we ever move to IPv6? I dont know.. Do I care for now? Nope, IPv4
works for me for now.

---------- Original message ----------

From: Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:17:42 -0600

On 9/24/21 3:01 AM, borg at uu3.net wrote:
> Oh yeah, it would be very funny if this will really happen (new protocol).
> Im not happy with IPv6, and it seems many others too.

Is your dissatisfaction with the IPv6 protocol itself or is your dissatisfaction
with the deployment / adoption of the IPv6 protocol?

I think that it's a very critical distinction.  Much like DoH as a protocol vs
how some companies have chosen to utilize it.  Similar to IBM's computers vs
what they were used for in the 1940's.

> This is short list how my ideal IPv6 proto looks like:
> - 64bit address space
>    more is not always better
> - loopback 0:0:0:1/48
> - soft LL 0:0:1-ffff:0/32 (Link Local)
> - RFC1918 address space 0:1-ffff:0:0/16
> - keep ARPs, ND wasnt great idea after all?
> - NAT support (because its everywhere these days)
> - IPv6 -> IPv4 interop (oneway)
>    we can put customers on IPv6, while keeping services dualstack
> - correct DHCP support (SLAAC wasnt great idea after all?)
>    I think its already in IPv6, but was an issue at the begining

I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I believe that the IPv6 that we have
today effectively does all of those things.  At least functionality, perhaps
with different values.

> If there are some weird requirements from others, put them into layer up.
> L3 needs to be simple (KISS concept), so its easy to implement and less
> prone to bugs.

How many of the hurtles to IPv6's deployment have been bugs in layer 3? It seems
to me that most of the problems with IPv6 that I'm aware of are at other layers,
significantly higher in, or on top of, the stack.

> And that IPv6 I would love to see and addapt right away :)

I'm of the opinion that IPv6 has worked quite well dual stack from about
2005-2015.  It's only been in the last 5 or so years that I'm starting to see
more problems with IPv6.  And all of the problems that I'm seeing are companies
making business level decisions, way above layer 7, that negatively impact IPv6.
Reluctance to run an MX on IPv6 for business level decisions is definitely not a
protocol, much less L3, problem.

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die