> > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a > decade. >
There are lots of vendors, both inside and outside the networking space, that have consistently released products with non-existant or broken IPv6 implementations. That includes smaller startups, as well as very big names. An affirmative choice is often made to make sure v4 works , get the thing out the door, and deal with v6 later, or if a big client complains. To be completely fair, some of those vendors also mess up IPv4 implementations as well, but in my experience , v4 stuff is more often 'vanilla' coding issues, whereas v6 mistakes tend to be more basic functional errors, like handling leading zeros correctly. On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:17 AM John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> wrote: > John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be > > useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its > > network stack, which would take on the order of a decade... > > Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a decade > ago. See the Implementation Status section of our draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ > > Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because > they tried it and it works. We have running code. The future is now. > We are ready to update the standards. > > The only major OS that doesn't support 240/4 is Microsoft Windows -- and > it comes with regular online updates. So if IETF made the decision to > make it unicast space, most MS OS users could be updated within less > than a year. > > > It's basically > > the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. > > If that was true, we'd be living in the IPv6 heaven now. > > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a > decade. > > Whatever the IPv6 transition might require, it isn't comparable to the > small effort needed to upgrade a few laggard OS's to support 240/4 and > to do some de-bogonization in the global Internet, akin to what CloudFlare > did for 1.1.1.1. > > John > >