V6 still not supported

Wed Mar 23 20:27:48 UTC 2022

james.cutler at consultant.com wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com 
>> <mailto:jmaimon at jmaimon.com>> wrote:
>> ...
>> Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address 
>> shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the 
>> resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not and that 
>> globally v4 address shortage is still a problem is a tally of 
>> multiple years of failure.
>
> I noticed that no one on NANOG in the nineties predicted the 
> foot-dragging and whining regarding transition from IPv4 toIPv6. 

You must not be looking hard enough. There have been many accounts of 
how Dual Stack as a transition was steamrollered on over naysayers 
objections and predictions.

My personal correspondence on NANOG doesnt date that far back but here 
are some of the earliest on-topic examples readily available.

https://archive.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2004-10/msg00298.html

https://archive.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2004-11/msg00112.html

https://archive.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2005-07/msg00023.html

> We probably should have done so. I, for one, was busy trying to manage 
> interconnects between divisions with their autonomous ref1918 worlds. 
> I applauded the prospect of global unique addressing. So far the 
> technical process has had rocky moments, but it ongoing failure has 
> not happened.

Depends on the definition of the goal. And your definition appears to be 
some measure of forward momentum. Certainly plenty exists. And that is 
good news in and of itself. But the internet needed more and long ago 
already. And that is the bad news.

>
> Any failure experienced is largely a failure of management/accounts to 
> invest in the future for something that the media can not turn into 
> sound bites and flashy images. This displays a clear lack of 
> enlightened self interest.

When you build something and they dont come on schedule, you can blame 
them or you can consider what you could or should have done differently, 
especially as it may advise for the future. If you choose the former, 
there and then is the evidence of the type of thinking that tends to 
produce these outcomes.

>
> Even in my home office, over the last nine years I have observed 
> continually increasing IPv6 access for myself and my clients.  Comcast 
>  has demonstrated that IPv6 has no deleterious effect on typical user 
> experience. Apple and Microsoft have provided admirable support for 
> IPv6 coexisting with IPv4 on end systems. I suggest that it may be 
> more important to deploy solutions to BufferBloat, to the benefit of 
> both IPv4 and IPv6 since it will improve the user experience, than to 
> try to extend IPv4 lifetime, an effort with diminishing returns.
>
>
Yeah, I think blaming bufferbloat is another example of designers 
passing the buck and engaging. If the reality consists of large buffers, 
start engineering with them in mind.

Or better yet, fast large ram cheaply and widely available should be 
considered a welcome and valuable resource. Try to make proper use of it.

As for the rest, false dichotomy again. Do both. Or applaud both. Or 
support both. Or at least, dont oppose either.

Joe