V6 still not supported

borg at uu3.net borg at uu3.net
Thu Mar 17 10:30:37 UTC 2022

It seems team developing IPv6 had ONE way of doing things, 
with is actually recipe for disaster. Why? Because they were building an IP
protocol. Something that will be using globally by ALL networks around.
Not some local IOT (useless) shit used here and there.
Thats why such IP protocol should be follow KISS concept and flexibility.
Some people have different vision how to run network. And because
Inter-net is an AS to AS network they should have right to do so.

In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because
crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly.

Its same about other weird things embedded into IPv6 that probably
should go layer up. And now people wonder why IPv6 adoption is crap and 
there is high resistance. IPv4 made mistakes too, but hell, it was the first.

It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space.
Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve
non-existant (or already fixed) problems.

Just my 2 cents...

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

From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com>
To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 22:24:14 -0400

I'd wanted to clearly distinguish this from the old methods:

   This is intended to replace ARP, ICMP Router Advertisement, ICMP
   Redirect, ICMP Information, ICMP Mask, and OSPF Hello in the [IPv6]
   environment. There are also elements of the OSI ES-IS and IS-IS Hello.

We were forward looking to deployments of thousands of systems per link, rather
than the 30 maximum under then current ethernet standards.  We needed fewer
announcements, less chatty traffic, and more specific traffic designation.

We also prioritized network security.  Moreover requiring addresses be
such that applications would not be able to tie authentication/authorization to
IPv6 address and would be motivated to use cryptographic security.

Unfortunately, later committees decided that rather than a single simpler
address assignment scheme, we needed unsecured SLAAC and duplicate DHCPv6.
Three ways to do the same thing are always a recipe for disaster.

Reminder: I was an operator and one of the original NANOG members.

We spent a lot of time considering human factors.  I'd pioneered the
"Operational Considerations" section of the original draft RFCs.

IPv6 is a case study of what happens with committee-itis.

The small design team worked well.

More information about the NANOG mailing list