V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Fri Mar 18 19:15:29 UTC 2022

On 3/18/22 1:23 AM, borg at uu3.net wrote:
> Yes, you are right. And gradually IPv4 was improved and fixed.
> We learned how to defend L2. CIDR was added (with should be thing
> from the begining instead of netmasks, but who could forsee...)
> And in case of IPv6 it seems that all that experience was throwed out
> of window. Design was much different that IPv4, adding new issues.
> I have feeling that IPv6 was made by people who were NOT running networks.

I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To me 
back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address. ND was just 
ARPv2 and SLAAC was an alternative to bootp. DHCP didn't exist, nor 
IPsec, nor NAT. What else does an ipv6 host need to implement?

My theory is that the real problem is that hardware switching arrived 
before v6 and vendors didn't want to implement it because of cost. That 
gave a great excuse for why providers couldn't deploy v6 which they 
didn't want to do anyway.


> The big question is, what we can do that to fix IPv6 problem.
> I have no clue at all.. Im personally biased against IPv6.
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com>
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:52:32 -0700
> On 3/17/22 3:30 AM, borg at uu3.net wrote:
>> 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.
> As somebody who designed IoT things back when v6 was being designed, my only
> question was whether it would get deployed, not whether it was too complex. It
> was honestly a lot easier than a completely new protocol stack like appletalk or
> netware.
>> In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because
>> crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly.
> I don't see what the OS layer has to do with anything. An operating system that
> doesn't get patches is even worse than app level code that doesn't.
>> 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.
> There were tons of things that were slapped onto IP that were basically
> experimental like ARP and bootp. CIDR didn't even exist back then.
> Also: security, for example, was not an already fixed problem. Far from it.
> Mike

More information about the NANOG mailing list