V6 still not supported

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Thu Mar 24 10:36:20 UTC 2022


Mark Delany wrote:
> On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote:
>
>> I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
> Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives?
>
> 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol that
>     magically creates a better and quicker transition?
>
> 2. Drop ipv6 and extend above the network layer for the forseeable future? By extend I
>     mean things which only introduce ipv4-compatible changes: NATs, TURN, CDN at the edge,
>     application overlays and other higher layer solutions.
>
> 3. Live with ipv6 and continue to engineer simpler, better, easier and no-brainer
>     deployments?
>
> I'll admit it risks being a "sunk cost falacy" argument to perpetuate ipv6, but are the
> alternatives so clear that we're really ready to drop ipv6

I most assuredly hope not. However this is not actually within any 
specific bodies absolute control. The overblown representation of the 
top down nature of internet design is a significant fallacy.

If a vacuum persists and what fills that void is detrimental to IPv6 
global deployment, it would be a significant setback. But the internet 
wont care.

What you can do is try and preempt the vacuum.

In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.

Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.

By all means, continue to evangelize users and pressure vendors. But 
thats not enough. Make IPv6 more attractive, more utilitarian, more 
useful. Address and remove barriers and hurdles. And that means doing 
and accepting things that many have significant distaste for.

Personally, that means that although I have long disliked proposals that 
keep moving to the left of the 128bit space, were I to believe it likely 
to increase deployment and momentum I would champion it in my own 
limited fashion much as I do 240/4.

>
>> so much as IPv6 has not yet achieved its goal.
> As someone previously mentioned, "legacy" support can have an extremely long tail which
> might superficially make "achieving a goal" look like a failure.

While true, thats not my concern. My concern is that continued 
dependence on functioning IPv4 by and large for the internet population 
has resulted in additional costs and constrains on the addresses 
required to utilize it. So long as that persists, so does the failure 
status of IPv6 towards the goal of alleviating it.

And thats the goal that actually matters to the internet population at 
large.
>
> Forget ss7 and SIP, what about 100LL vs unleaded petrol or 1/2" bolts vs 13mm bolts? Both
> must be 50 years in the making with many more years to come. The glacial grind of
> displacing legacy tech is hardly unique to network protocols.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, the goal of replacing ipv4 with ipv6 has really only had a
> relatively short life-time compared to many other tech transitions. Perhaps it's time to
> adopt the patience of the physical world?
>
>
> Mark.
>
>

I agree. But that means behavioral modification towards a
much longer term outlook than has been in widespread evidence thus far.

Joe


More information about the NANOG mailing list