V6 still not supported

Greg Skinner gregskinner0 at icloud.com
Thu Mar 24 07:22:25 UTC 2022


> On Mar 23, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
> <chuckle>   Yes, indeed - although there was a fairly large contingent that felt IPng would just suddenly take off at depletion of the IPv4 free pool if vendors pushed it, and that it?s success was assured even if IPng had no benefit over IPv4 with regard to feature parity (IPv6 AH/EH vis-a-vis IPv4 IPsec, etc.) 
> 
> The reality was that such sudden & rapid deployment occuring at IPv4 runout was unlikely even if we delivered a working protocol with "a straightforward transition plan from the current IPv4? ? and it was even more remote without a clear, in-hand working transition strategy.   When combined the near inevitable arrival of IPv4 NAT, it made for a particularly poor prognosis for IPng (when compared to IPv4 & NAT.) 
> 
> In 1994, during the IPng process, I penned a warning in this regard <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1669.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1669.txt>> - 
>   No internetworking vendor (whether host, router, or service vendor)
>   can afford to deploy and support products and services which are not
>   desired in the marketplace.  Given the potential proliferation of
>   network address translation devices, it is not clear that IPng will
>   secure sufficient following to attain market viability.  In the past,
>   we have seen internetworking protocols fail in the marketplace
>   despite vendor deployment and IPng cannot succeed if it is not
>   deployed by organizations.  As currently envisioned, IPng may not be
>   ambitious enough in the delivery of new capabilities to compete
>   against IPv4 and the inevitable arrival of network address
>   translation devices.  In order to meet the requirement for "viability
>   in the marketplace', IPng needs to deliver clearly improved
>   functionality over IPv4 while offering some form transparent access
>   between the IPv4 and IPng communities once IPv4 address depletion has
>   occurred.
> About two decades later, at the time of the IPv4 central free pool runout (Feb 2011), we had neither ?clearly improved functionality? nor a straightforward transition plan for "transparent access between the IPv4 and IPng communities? ? I do hope I was wrong about the outlook for IPng under such conditions, but we?ll need to wait for another few decades to know for sure one way or the other.
> 
> Best wishes,
> /John
> 

I was going to post a link to your RFC but you beat me to it, lol.  Not much I can add here, except to suggest that people ponder the implications of the tussle paper <https://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf> I posted a link to a few days ago.

—gregbo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220324/81e30b10/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list