V6 still not supported

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) pthubert at cisco.com
Tue Mar 22 15:33:52 UTC 2022


IPv4 is 40 years  old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old timers. 

Since then, networks have evolved dramatically, with new physical media like wireless that hates broadcasts, and new logical constructs like overlays in cloud and SD WAN which require new IP abstractions and more control.

Question is whether we keep complaining for the next 25 years that choices made 25 years ago were inadequate, or work on evolving stuff to meet needs. 

There are groups at the IETF that standardized IPv6 evolutions for those networks. We now have means to decouple the IP abstractions of Link and Subnet from the underlaying L2/L1 constructs and provide a deterministic state about the end points to the network. The equivalent for IPv4 did not really happen.

The rest of the world will follow the evolution because there's not enough IPv4 for Africa or Asia anyway. I see the analogy with the industrial revolution, England stuck to coal and steam when the world that had nothing moved on.

Which side are you on?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com at nanog.org> On Behalf Of
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 16:02
> To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: V6 still not supported
> Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal
> outcome. Happens to the best of us.
> One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone
> conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the
> Net.
> Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet)
> ---
> Sent from a handheld device.
> > On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> >
> > john,
> >
> > fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory.  one nuance
> >
> >> That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but
> >> rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to
> >> “make a decision”
> >
> > my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate
> > technical pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that
> > the industry press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the
> > internet due to
> > ipv4 exhaustion.  i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was
> > pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press.
> >
> > i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING,
> > it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think.  the ietf did
> > not.  and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to
> > clean up the mess.
> >
> > randy

More information about the NANOG mailing list