V6 still not supported

William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Thu Mar 17 03:00:53 UTC 2022

On 3/10/22 9:22 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Matthew Walster wrote:
>> IPv6 is technologically superior to IPv4, there's no doubt about that.
> It is not. Though IPv6 was designed against OSI CLNP (with 20B,
> or, optionally, 40B addresses), IPv6 incorporated many abandoned
> ideas of CLNP and XNS already known to be useless or harmful with
> experiences on IPv4 to be a protocol as bad as or even worse than
> For example, address length was extended from original 8B to
> 16B to allow lower 48bits be MAC addresses, which was what
> XNS was doing, only to make ISP operations with raw
> addresses prohibitively painful.

IPv6 as originally designed had 8 byte (64-bit) addresses that had no
difficulty including 48-bit MAC addresses for link-local deployment.

It was explicitly stated that they would *NEVER* be globally visible,
as there were many documented examples of duplicate MAC assignments.

Then, the powers that be declared that IPv6 should have 128-bit addresses,
and a host of committees were setup with competing CLNP (TUBA) co-chairs.
They incorporated many ideas of CLNP and XNS that were thought (by many of
us) to be worthless, useless, and harmful.  Committee-itis at its worst.

My original address plan had the leading 32 bits as the existing ASN,
with the lower 32-bits as the existing IPv4 address.  Making ISP
operations eminently easier, as we already knew those two things.

More information about the NANOG mailing list