> On Sep 14, 2021, at 19:40 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@chl.com> wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> Many solutions and proposals have been offered by many people much more >>> qualified than myself to do so, and were brought to the rocks due to dual >>> stack and anti-nat religion. >> Could this be due to the fact that things which merely extend the pain of >> address scarcity are not viewed as solutions by those of us who prefer an >> end-to-end model? > > The scarcity is caused by the slow state of IPv6 deployment. Which is caused > by the lack of compatibility and utility of IPv6.
I keep hearing this compatibility whine… > Address the latter, and the former improves. However, scarcity is causing > issues now. How do you propose to make systems that don’t understand addresses longer than 32 bits speak compatibly to more uniquely addressed systems than UNSIGNED_MAXINT(32)? Nobody I know has found a way to do lossless packing of 128 bits into a 32 bit field yet. Until you can achieve that, compatibility is rather limited. Please present your solution here. > In essence you hope that scarcity continues to function as leverage to hasten > deployment of a protocol that does nothing to improve it in the short term. Not so much hope as recognition that at the current time, it is the only forcing function and that clearly some people are so strongly motivated to endure whatever pain is necessary to avoid change that until scarcity becomes so completely painful or expensive to them that they simply cannot take it any more, they will not budge. > That is neither justifiable nor responsible. Worse, it is not working. Not > nearly fast enough. Agreed… What’s your proposed solution? Certainly your whining about it here isn’t helping anyone achieve any useful progress on it. > If you want p2p, you should embrace anything that brings the day IPv4 becomes > optional closer, whether you find its technically offensive or not. I’m not at all convinced that standardizing NAT6 does that, but I am convinced that it degrades the potential for IPv6 to be truly functionally p2p. >> How soon this finally happens or doesn’t is up to the very laggards you are >> championing. > > Not. Simply explaining why there exists a significant and continuing portion > of the internet that you have characterized as laggards, who frankly dont > really care what you or even I think of them. And pointing out that it was > easy to see back in the beginning that this was almost certainly to be the > situation. That calling them names hasnt worked quite well thus far and > likely wont in the future either. So what’s your better solution? More whining doesn’t seem to be helping either. > Which leads to the only logical and objective conclusion that continuing to > base a speedy IPv6 deployment on their coming around is ridiculous. Agreed… At a certain point, hopefully enough people that have deployed IPv6 will no longer view them as important and simply move on leaving them to catch up or not. As I posted earlier, I’m close to that point now. I suspect a growing number of people are close to that point as well. I suspect this number will continue to grow and many will reach that point sooner than you expect. If I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time, but I think that’s going to be the only thing that eventually works. >>> The lengths people will go to ignore change thats not very relevant to them >>> are not impressive, just predictable. >> The lengths people will go to to pretend that relevant change isn’t because >> they find it uncomfortable in some way are impressive. They might also be >> predictable. >> >> Owen > > IPv6 isnt even relevant to you in any real way. Its completely optional and > brings no additional value to your operational needs. Disagree. IPv6 is very relevant to me and provides me access to a number of things that are not available to me on IPv4 because I like being able to have apps that talk to things on other networks without needing a rendezvous host. > And since its so easy to deploy there isnt any real rush to get a jump ahead. Anybody deploying now isn’t ahead, they’re just less behind than some others. Owen _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
