IPv6 woes - RFC

Wed Sep 29 14:28:16 UTC 2021

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:39 AM <borg at uu3.net> wrote:

> Oh well.. Then how you gonna solve the el-cheapo SOHO multihoming?
>
> Im currently dual homed, having 2 uplinks, RFC1918 LAN, doing policy
> routing and NATing however I want..
>
>
why of COURSE you do source address selection!
so simple!

>
> ---------- Original message ----------
>
> From: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
> To: borg at uu3.net
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 00:28:40 +1000
>
>
>
> > On 28 Sep 2021, at 19:19, borg at uu3.net wrote:
> >
> > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home
> > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house?
>
> Yes! Remember routable does not mean that it is reachable from outside.
>
> > And if they change ISP they will get new range?
>
> Yes!  What do you think DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is all about?  It
> has only been specified for 18 years now.  The IPv6 address ranges ISP
> get for RIRs are based on handing out multiple /64 to every customer.
>
> > Doesnt sounds nice to me.. But I guess I its just me
>
> It sounds like you need to do some reading about IPv6, then actually
> use it.  100s of millions of home customers are get routable IPv6 prefixes
> today around the world.  It's not scary.  Things don˙˙t blow up.
>
> > Yeah I am aware of putting additional aliases on loopback.
> >
> > No futher comment about ND and DHCP.
> >
> > Well, at a time when TCP/IP was invented, 32bit address space looked
> > pretty much big... I dont blame them than they didnt predicted future..
> > Unfortunately, cant say the same about IPv6 R&D taskforce ;)
> >
> > Hah, multicast... Ill skip it.
> >
> > Followed change to support CIDR, Internet was still small and considered
> > R&D field...
> >
> > Okey, I think its no need to futher pollute NANOG list with this.
> > I said at the begining that this is just my subjective opinion.
> > This will not help IPv6 case at all.
> >
> > At least from my (2) standpoint it would be really cool that IPv6
> > would be finally addopted.
> >
> > I just wanted to share my toughts about why im not big fan of IPv6.
> > I also wanted to hear other opinions what they dislike about it, no
> > list of how cool IPv6 is and how everyone should use it right away.
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original message ----------
> >
> > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> > To: borg at uu3.net
> > Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
> > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 12:01:22 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 25, 2021, at 01:57 , borg at uu3.net wrote:
> >>
> >> 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..
> >
> > Sometimes worse things replace better. NAT, for example was definitely
> not
> > an improvement to IPv4. It was a necessary evil intended to be a
> temporary
> > fix.
> >
> >>
> >> IPv4 Lookback is 127.0.0.1/8
> >> You can use bind IPs within range by applications. Handy
> >> In IPv6 its not the case.
> >
> > You are free to assign any additional IPv6 addresses you like to the
> loopback
> > interface and then bind them to applications. Personally, I haven˙˙t
> found a
> > particularly good use for this, but it is possible.
> >
> > It does mean that instead of wasting 1/256th of the entire address space
> > in every context on loopbacks, you have to assign what you need there,
> > but you can easily assign a /64 prefix to a loopback interface and have
> > applications bind within range.
> >
> >> IPv6 ND brings new problems that has been (painfully?) fixed in IPv4.
> >> Tables overflows, attacks and DDoS.. Why to repeat history again?
> >
> > Table overflows weren˙˙t fixed in IPv4 and have nothing to do with ND vs.
> > ARP. Table overflows are (not really an issue in my experience) the
> > result of a larger address space than the memory available for the L2
> > forwarding table on switches or the ND table on hosts. This isn˙˙t due
> > to a difference in ND vs. ARP. It is due to the fact that there are no
> > 64-bit networks in IPv4, but they are commonplace in IPv6.
> >
> > Mostly this has been solved in software by managing table discards more
> > effectively.
> >
> >> 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...
> >
> > I am using IPv6 and I˙˙m using IPv6 DHCP. I haven˙˙t encountered any
> significant
> > problems with it other than some minor inconveniences introduced by the
> ability
> > to have different DUID types and vendors doing semi-obnoxious things
> along that
> > line.
> >
> >> 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 ;)
> >
> > It was thought about˙˙ It was considered. It was long pondered. Problem
> was,
> > nobody could come up with a way to overcome the fact that you can˙˙t put
> > 128 bits of data in a 32 bit field without loss.
> >
> > IPv6 really isn˙˙t so alien, so I don˙˙t buy that argument. The software
> changes
> > necessary to implement IPv6 were significantly bigger than CIDR and IPv6
> > affected applications, not just network. There was no way around these
> > two facts. The IPv6 network stack did get adopted and implemented nearly
> > as fast as CIDR and virtually every OS, Switch, Router has had IPv6
> support
> > for quite some time now at the network stack level. It is applications
> and
> > content providers that are lagging and they never did anything for CIDR.
> >
> >> As for IPv4 vs IPv6 complexity, again, why repeat history.
> >
> > What complexity?
> >
> >> Biggest IPv4
> >> mistake was IPv4 being classfull. It was fixed by bringing CIDR into
> game.
> >
> > No, biggest IPv4 mistake was 32-bit addresses. A larger address would
> have been
> > inconvenient in hardware at the time, but it would have made IPv4 much
> more
> > scalable and would have allowed it to last significantly longer.
> >
> >> (Another big mistake was class E reservation...)
> >
> > Not really. It was a decision that made sense at the time. Class D
> reservation
> > made sense originally too. Without it, we wouldn˙˙t have had addresses
> available
> > to experiment with or develop multicast.
> >
> > There was no way to know at the time that decision was made that IPv4
> would run
> > out of addresses before it would find some new thing to experiment with.
> >
> >> Internet was tiny at that time so everyone followed.
> >
> > Followed what, exactly?
> >
> >> Image something like this today? Same about IPv6.. it brings
> >> forced network::endpoint probably due to IoT, sacrificing flexibility.
> >
> > I can˙˙t parse this into a meaningful comment. Can you clarify please?
> > What is ˙˙forced network::endpoint˙˙ supposed to mean and what does it
> > have to do with IoT? What flexibility has been sacrificed?
> >
> >> Again, I dont want to really defend my standpoint here. Its too late
> for
> >> that. I kinda regret now dropping into discussion...
> >
> > OK, so you want to make random comments which are not even necessarily
> > true and then walk away from the discussion? I have trouble understanding
> > that perspective.
> >
> > I˙˙m not trying to bash your position or you. I˙˙m trying to understand
> your
> > objections, figure out which ones are legitimate criticism of IPv6, which
> > ones are legitimate criticism, but not actually IPv6, and which ones
> > are simply factually incorrect. For the last category, I presume that
> comes
> > from your lack of actual IPv6 experience or some other form of ignorance
> > and I˙˙d like to attempt useful education to address those.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- 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
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210929/4122f240/attachment.html>