V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Tue Mar 22 21:37:24 UTC 2022

On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush 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.
So are you saying that an ipng that came out in, say, 2000 which was 
according to you was vastly superior having taken the time to get it 
right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My experience 
with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't give a 
shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If their silicon forwarding 
couldn't handle it, they weren't interested unless customers were 
clamoring for it. I can't see how that negative feedback loop could have 
ever been prevented other than other ipng being done in, oh say, 1993 
when it was all still software forwarding.


More information about the NANOG mailing list