On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 at 19:52, nanog--- via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:

> So you use header compression on all your links, right? No sense reducing 
> your 1Gbps main uplink to 0.98Gbps. The checksum (removed in v6)  is already 
> 5% of each IP packet header. Speaking of headers I take it you're using SLIP 
> instead of Ethernet? And you avoid TLS like the plague? I hope you replaced 
> your 15W LED bulbs with 14.7W bulbs as well - your finance department will 
> thank you. This is asinine.

IPv6 is kind of riddled with these changes for sake of change, which
just made things worse.

- removing checksum (no way to know when LSR/L2 transit has broken
memory, mangling frames)
- mandating multicast for L2 disco (not actually implemented, linux,
cisco, juniper... doesn't even join the /mandatory/ group by default,
switches do not have scale to handle it under adverse condition). In
reality good 'ol flooding is used, because cure was worse than the
disease
- forcing ipsec into it, later removed
- the whole lunacy of massive network sizes, making it impossible to
make secure L2 disco without complicated and expensive protection
logic which rarely exists. All while technically SLAAC and DAD would
allow using arbitrarily small, or if you actually force L2 address in
L3 address you could do stateless (no ND), which is also not
implemented anywhere
- whole next-header woe with TCP/UDP at the bottom, lucily in practice
situation remains same as in IPV4, you cannot use those options and no
new functionality can be added by introducing new ones, outside of
controlled small environments, which might just as well run IPv42,
when interop is not relevant.

While in reality only utility needed or gained is more addresses,
which is sufficient to fix the actual problem we had. But we keep
trying to add opinionated solutions for problems that may or may not
exist, adding disagreements and reducing motivation to implement and
migrate.

-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/GOAEEWAMMJZZBIULLNKKDWE7TDG2T7TL/

Reply via email to