> On Mar 23, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> wrote: > > <chuckle> Yes, indeed - although there was a fairly large contingent that > felt IPng would just suddenly take off at depletion of the IPv4 free pool if > vendors pushed it, and that it?s success was assured even if IPng had no > benefit over IPv4 with regard to feature parity (IPv6 AH/EH vis-a-vis IPv4 > IPsec, etc.) > > The reality was that such sudden & rapid deployment occuring at IPv4 runout > was unlikely even if we delivered a working protocol with "a straightforward > transition plan from the current IPv4? ? and it was even more remote without > a clear, in-hand working transition strategy. When combined the near > inevitable arrival of IPv4 NAT, it made for a particularly poor prognosis for > IPng (when compared to IPv4 & NAT.) > > In 1994, during the IPng process, I penned a warning in this regard > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1669.txt > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1669.txt>> - > No internetworking vendor (whether host, router, or service vendor) > can afford to deploy and support products and services which are not > desired in the marketplace. Given the potential proliferation of > network address translation devices, it is not clear that IPng will > secure sufficient following to attain market viability. In the past, > we have seen internetworking protocols fail in the marketplace > despite vendor deployment and IPng cannot succeed if it is not > deployed by organizations. As currently envisioned, IPng may not be > ambitious enough in the delivery of new capabilities to compete > against IPv4 and the inevitable arrival of network address > translation devices. In order to meet the requirement for "viability > in the marketplace', IPng needs to deliver clearly improved > functionality over IPv4 while offering some form transparent access > between the IPv4 and IPng communities once IPv4 address depletion has > occurred. > About two decades later, at the time of the IPv4 central free pool runout > (Feb 2011), we had neither ?clearly improved functionality? nor a > straightforward transition plan for "transparent access between the IPv4 and > IPng communities? ? I do hope I was wrong about the outlook for IPng under > such conditions, but we?ll need to wait for another few decades to know for > sure one way or the other. > > Best wishes, > /John >
I was going to post a link to your RFC but you beat me to it, lol. Not much I can add here, except to suggest that people ponder the implications of the tussle paper <https://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf> I posted a link to a few days ago. —gregbo
