IPv6 woes - RFC

Fri Sep 24 20:26:27 UTC 2021

On 9/24/21 11:53 AM, borg at uu3.net wrote:
> Well, I see IPv6 as double failure really.

I still feel like you are combining / conflating two distinct issues 
into one generalization.

> First, IPv6 itself is too different from IPv4.

Is it?  Is it really?  Is the delta between IPv4 and IPv6 greater than 
the delta between IPv4 and IPX?

If anything, I think the delta between IPv4 and IPv6 is too small. 
Small enough that both IPv4 and IPv6 get treated as one protocol and 
thus a lot of friction between the multiple personalities therein.  I 
also think that the grouping of IPv4 and IPv6 as one protocol is part of 
the downfall.

More over if you think of IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack as analogous to the 
multi-protocol networks of the '90s, and treat them as disparate 
protocols that serve similar purposes in (completely) different ways, a 
lot of the friction seems to make sense and as such becomes less 
friction through understanding and having reasonable expectations for 
the disparate protocols.

> 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.

I don't think you truly mean that having a new protocol is fine. 
Because if you did, I think you would treat IPv6 as a completely 
different protocol from IPv4.  E.g. AppleTalk vs DECnet.  After all, we 
effectively do have a new protocol; IPv6.

IPv6 is as similar to IPv4 as Windows 2000 is similar to Windows 98.  Or 
"different" in place of "similar".

> 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.

I disagree.

> 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 ;)

I blame the industry, not the IPv6 protocol, for the lackluster adoption 
of IPv6.

> 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

How does IPv6 differ from IPv4 in this context?

> - 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)

I agree that IPv6 addresses seem to accumulate on interfaces like IoT 
devices do on a network.  But I don't see a technical problem with this 
in and of itself.  --  I can't speak to OSPFv3 issues.

> - 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.

I consider this to be implementation issues and not a problem with the 
protocol itself.

> - Neighbor Discovery protocol... quite a bit problems it created.

Please elaborate.

>    What was wrong w/ good old ARP? I tought we fixed all those problems
>    already like ARP poisoning via port security.. etc

The apparent need to ""fix / address / respond to a protocol problem at 
a lower layer seems like a problem to me.

> - NAT is there in IPv6 so no futher comments
> - DHCP start to get working on IPv6.. but it still pain sometimes

What problems do you have with DHCP for IPv6?  I've been using it for 
the better part of a decade without any known problems.  What pain are 
you experiencing?

> And biggest problem, interop w/ IPv4 was completly failure.

I agree that the interoperability between IPv4 and IPv6 is the tall pole 
in the tent.  But I also believe that's to be expected when trying to 
interoperate disparate protocols.

 From ground zero, I would expect that disparate protocols can't 
interoperate without external support, some of which requires explicit 
configuration.

> Currently we have best Internet to migrate to new protocol. 
> Why?

The primary motivation -- as I understand it -- is the lack of unique IP 
addresses.

> 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.

Now you are talking about two classes of Internet connectivity:

1)  First class participation where an endpoint /is/ /on/ the Internet 
with a globally routed IP.
2)  Second class participation where an endpoint /has/ /access/ /to/ the 
Internet via a non-globally routed IP.

There may be some merit to multiple classes of Internet connectivity. 
But I think it should be dealt with openly and above board as such.

> And end comment. I do NOT want to start some kind of flame war here. 
> Yeah I know, Im biased toward IPv4.

I don't view honest and good spirited discussion of facts and 
understanding to be a flame war.  In fact, I view such discussions as a 
good thing.

> 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.
Please elaborate on the complexity that IPv6 brings that IPv4 didn't 
also bring with it in the '90s?

Would the things that you are referring to as IPv6 complexities have 
been any different if we had started with IPv6 instead of IPv4 in the 
'80s & '90s?

In some ways it seems to me that you are alluding to the legacy code / 
equipment / understanding / configuration / what have you.  This is 
something that many have been dealing with for quite a while.  The 
mainframe's ability to run code from near half a century ago comes to mind.

> The fact is, IPv6 failed.

I concede that IPv6 has faltered.  But I don't believe it's failed.  I 
don't think it's fair to claim that it has.

> 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.

You are entitled to your own opinion as much as I'm entitled to mine. 
But the key thing to keep in mind is that it's /your/ opinion.  The 
operative word being "your" as in "you".  Your views / opinions / 
experiences are /yours/.  What's more important is that other people's 
views / opinions / experiences may be different.

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210924/6b36a34a/attachment.bin>