V6 still not supported

bzs at theworld.com bzs at theworld.com
Sat Mar 19 01:18:08 UTC 2022

I remember in the 80s getting into a rather detailed debate with an
OSI fan about how OSI put at least authorization into what we'd call
the IP layer roughly, CLNP/CLNS/TP0-4.

A lot of it came down to you send me your initial handshake and I
first see if you're authorized and if not reject you right there.

They were quite obsessed with authorization because they were quite
obsessed with, basically, billing for every connection, who do I
charge this connection to?

Particularly in the 80s it seemed way too much overhead at way too low
of a level to me.

Almost 40 years later and maybe they were on to something.

Unfortunately I still suspect it would have thrown the baby right out
with the bathwater. The overhead involved would have limited network
nodes (at the time) to big, expensive boxes, like PBX's, with
intricate authorization and billing mechanisms rather than what made
TCP/IP take off.

Even in 1985 you could get a fully functional TCP/IP system running in
cheap hardware most anyone with a steady job could afford rather than
relegate such systems to SNA-like server/client architectures probably
requiring intimate integration into telcos.

But we finally have done that with mobile phones! Just try running
your own mobile phone network. Yay us!

On March 17, 2022 at 18:52 mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote:
 > 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

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

More information about the NANOG mailing list