IPv6 woes - RFC

Sat Sep 25 08:57:45 UTC 2021

Well, I think we should not compare IPX to IPv4 because those protocols
were made to handle completly different networks?

Yeah, IPv6 is new, but its more like revolution instead of evolution.

Well, Industry seems to addapt things quickly when they are good enough.
Better things replace worse. Of course its not always the case, sometimes
things are being forced here.. And thats how I feel about IPv6..

IPv4 Lookback is 127.0.0.1/8
You can use bind IPs within range by applications. Handy
In IPv6 its not the case.

IPv6 ND brings new problems that has been (painfully?) fixed in IPv4.
Tables overflows, attacks and DDoS.. Why to repeat history again?

IPv6 DHCP: Im not using IPv6, but I heard ppl talking about some 
issues. If this is not the case, im sorry. Its been a while when I last time
played with IPv6...

IPv6 interop: yeah, I agree here.. But people involved with IPv6 should 
think about some external IPv4 interop.. Internet was exploding at 1997..
Maybe they had hope that everyone upgrade like in CIDR case. And maybe it 
could happen if IPv6 wasnt so alien ;)

As for IPv4 vs IPv6 complexity, again, why repeat history. Biggest IPv4
mistake was IPv4 being classfull. It was fixed by bringing CIDR into game.
(Another big mistake was class E reservation...)
Internet was tiny at that time so everyone followed.
Image something like this today? Same about IPv6.. it brings
forced network::endpoint probably due to IoT, sacrificing flexibility.

Again, I dont want to really defend my standpoint here. Its too late for 
that. I kinda regret now dropping into discussion...

---------- 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 14:26:27 -0600

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