V6 still not supported

Fri Mar 25 01:25:18 UTC 2022

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:49, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 it should be reclassified from never going to be used into some part of the internet might actually do something with it. Its important that happens now, better late then never. Whether its GUA or not or a mix of whatever, whether it buys months or years will depend greatly on how its actually used if it is ever used.

Please feel free to use it for router IDs in BGP and/or OSPF area numbers. :p

> You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be wrong. IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions, but the same ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort asked from the unwilling is to support cutting the red tape frustrating the willing. A hearty round of knock yourself out from the right folk in the right place and time and we dont have to debate this particular point ever again.

Certainly, if we continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6 on bandaids and hacks to make v4 last just a little longer, we will continue to fail and further delay IPv6 reaching a level of deployment that allows us to start turning down IPv4 and beginning to recognize the cost savings that come from moving forward.

> How are we to ever find out who is right if that never happens? That alone is enough reason for me.

The problem is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. We’re talking about an optional activity which will inherently pull resources away from a necessary activity, thus delaying the necessary activity and becoming somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence I oppose this wasteful experiment in favor of doing what we all know eventually needs to be done.

>>> 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”.
> 
> That Ipv6 address allocation schemes and proposals tended to enlarge over time, using up more bits heading from right to left.

Meh… I haven’t seen too much of that. I’ve been guilty of a certain amount of it, to be sure, but we’re only recently seeing the two largest RIRs start working through their second /12s even though it’s been years since I pushed for (and achieved) nibble-boundary round-ups as the norm in the ARIN region.

I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro allocations to their customers.

Owen