V6 still not supported
owen at delong.com
Thu Mar 24 21:07:57 UTC 2022
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
One could argue that NAT44 and certainly NAT444 are exactly that.
> What you can do is try and preempt the vacuum.
I really wish we had done so prior to the popularization of IPv4 NAT.
> 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.
I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can survive on an hour of air for 20 years.
240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4.
I think that admitting that IPv4 simply doesn’t scale to the present day internet, let alone beyond is a far better move than continuing to pretend its heart is still beating on its own when it’s been on life support for more than a decade with no signs of brain activity.
> 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.
Here, I agree…
> 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.
Not sure what you mean by “moving to the left of the 128 bit space”.
We will obviously agree to disagree about 240/4 as we long have.
More information about the NANOG