Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Tue Nov 22 00:30:50 UTC 2022



David Conrad wrote:
> Barry,
>
> On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
>> We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years 
>> with very limited success
>
> According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it 
> looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years. 
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 has it around 30%. Given an Internet 
> population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and wrongly) argued 
> to mean 1.5-2B people are using IPv6. For a transition to a technology 
> that the vast majority of people who pay the bills will neither notice 
> nor care about, and for which the business case typically needs 
> projection way past the normal quarterly focus of shareholders, that 
> seems pretty successful to me.
>
> But back to the latest proposal to rearrange deck chairs on the IPv4 
> Titanic, the fundamental and obvious flaw is the assertion of 
> "commenting out one line code”. There isn’t “one line of code”. There 
> are literally _billions_ of instances of “one line of code”, the vast 
> majority of which need to be changed/deployed/tested with absolutely 
> no business case to do so that isn’t better met with deploying 
> IPv6+IPv4aaS. I believe this has been pointed out numerous times, but 
> it falls on deaf ears, so the discussion gets a bit tedious.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
Had the titanic stayed afloat some hours more, many more would have 
survived and been rescued when assistance eventually arrived. So that 
makes this a debate over whether this is deck chair re-arrangement or 
something more meaningful.

As I and others have pointed out, it depends on how it is used. And 
perhaps the attempt should be made regardless of knowing in advance 
which it will be.

You assertion needs some back of the envelope numbers, which once 
provided, I suspect will render your estimate grossly incorrect.

You can hardly attempt to convince anybody that 240/4 as unicast would 
not be the more trivial change made in any of these products natural 
life cycle points.

Especially as we have examples of what that type of effort might look 
like. IGTFY and here

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

The burdensome position is ridiculous even more so when stated with a 
straight face.

Joe





More information about the NANOG mailing list