Re: V6 still not supported

Hello Phil The only far ressemblance with 6to4 is the thing that was actually nice in the design, the automatic word in automatic tunnel. Which for the rest of us means stateless. Compared to CGNATs that is huge. Beyond that the proposal is not a tunnel and more akin to a nat64 since it allows

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

On 25 Mar 2022, at 2:27 PM, Philip Homburg wrote: > >> If by ?straightforward transition plan? one means a clear and rational set >> of >> options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only to >> IPv >> 6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

1) please join the list properly and stop replying to the digests. (note there have been many folks asking you to do this, disconnected message/new-threads are super super super annoying and remove the parts of the discussion from a coherent thread) On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:25 PM Abraham Y. Chen

Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Dear Owen: 0)    You rapid fired a few posts in succession yesterday. Some are interesting and crucial views that I would like to follow-up on. I will start from quoting the earlier ones. I hope that I am picking up the correct leads. 1)    " ... 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents

RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

big enough number of UDP/TCP ports for every subs (even most silent/conservative). Ed/ -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Brown Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:49 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6

Re: V6 still not supported

This huge conversation has been fun to follow. I like my IPv6 transition plan: Instead of moving the mountains and breaking my back to migrate (by myself) my ENTIRE not-so-small organization to IPv6, I keep things going on IPv4 relatively burden-less to my organization till I retire. Then th

MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this. Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the provider side? Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE, ven

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support Out of interest, how would this come about? - Jared

Re: V6 still not supported

Hello John You’ve got something dead wrong about the history of IPR, there’s certainly no idea of monopoly. What we do when there’s market interest is write an RFC and RAND the rights. There is 25 years of IETF history to prove that. Another angle is that the change is in the host stack for

Re: V6 still not supported

On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is > an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro > allocations to their customers. What exactly is your definition of “micro allo

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong wrote: You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be wrong. IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions, but the same ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort asked from the unwilling is to support cutting the red tape

Re: V6 still not supported

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG wrote: > I'm personally fond of the IP-in-IP variation that filed in 20+ years > ago as US patent 7,356,031. No wonder -- you are listed as the co-inventor! Just the fact that it is patented (and the patent is still unexpired) would make it a disfavored cand

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:49, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy. >>> >>> Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. Android phones are, indeed, part of the enterprise pr

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon wrote: In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy. Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible. I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can surviv

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:16 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail her

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:49 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 3/24/22 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by: >>> - extension headers >>> - SLAA

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. Android phones are, indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the bigges

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> >> Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. >> Android phones are, >> indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the biggest part. >> >> If this

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/24/22 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: Hi all, From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by: - extension headers - SLAAC instead of DHCP Everything else is minor. There’s no such thing as SLAAC instead of DH

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. Android phones are, indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the biggest part. If this were a purely technical problem, we’d have been done more than a decade ago.

Re: V6 still not supported

d=huawei@nanog.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Delany > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:35 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > > On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote: > >> I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Mark Delany wrote: >> On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote: >> >>> I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure >> Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives? >> >> 1. Dro

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 04:43 , Mark Delany wrote: > > On 24Mar22, Vasilenko Eduard allegedly wrote: >> Hence, the primary blocking entity for IPv6 adoption is Google: they do not >> support DHCPv6 for the most popular OS. > > No. The primary "blocking entity" is that "legacy" ipv4 works just

A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

On 24 Mar 2022, at 5:19 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > > On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote: > >> straightforward transition plan > >> in-hand working transition strategy > >> nor a straightforward transition The words quoted above are mine, not Greg’s, so let’s send the blame in my

RE: V6 still not supported

each IPv4 node that owns a public IPv4 address in one realm gets a full IPv6 /64 for free. " Now what? Pascal > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark > Delany > Sent: jeudi 24 mars 2022 12:45 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V6 still not supporte

Re: V6 still not supported

On 24Mar22, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) allegedly wrote: > Hello Mark: > > > Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is > > logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might yet be > > formulated some 20+ years after deploying any of ipv6, ipv4++ or ipv6-li

Re: V6 still not supported

On 24Mar22, Vasilenko Eduard allegedly wrote: > Hence, the primary blocking entity for IPv6 adoption is Google: they do not > support DHCPv6 for the most popular OS. No. The primary "blocking entity" is that "legacy" ipv4 works just fine and adopting ipv6 or ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or ipv-magical is

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: The fact that the majority of the network operators don’t use IPv6 is irrelevant under such victory conditions, Then, let's have a victory condition for IPv6 that no one use IPv6 is the victory and all of us are happy. Masatak

RE: V6 still not supported

Hello Mark: > Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is > logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might yet be > formulated some 20+ years after deploying any of ipv6, ipv4++ or ipv6-lite is > absurd. This is dishonest, considering that I just prove

Re: V6 still not supported

Mark Delany wrote: On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote: I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives? 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol

Re: V6 still not supported

Mark Delany wrote: On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote: straightforward transition plan in-hand working transition strategy nor a straightforward transition Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a myt

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong wrote: The goal of IPv6, IMHO, is to become the next lingua franca of the internet, eventually rendering IPv4 unnecessary except in small pockets of legacy support. Hey Owen, Indeed, having otherwise fallen short of the mark that is what remains. I agree that has not yet been

Re: V6 still not supported

On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote: > straightforward transition plan > in-hand working transition strategy > nor a straightforward transition Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might

RE: V6 still not supported

:35 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote: > I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives? 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++

Re: V6 still not supported

On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote: > I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives? 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol that magically creat

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 23, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > >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 IP

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 23, 2022, at 11:53 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> >> SIP won't displace all legacy PSTN any time soon. So it's a failure by your >> definition. And by your definition IPv6 was a failure before it was even >> born because the internet became popular -- s

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: 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 outl

Re: V6 still not supported

On 23 Mar 2022, at 3:06 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: >>However, recognize that IPv6 deployment continues to grow, and >>that means there could easily be a “tipping point” sometime in >>your future – i.e. a point in time when your organization needs to >>support IPv6 because of internal or

Re: V6 still not supported

james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: ... Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/23/22 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: IETF can't force people to adopt things, film at 11. They certainly can't control people's saltiness from something that happened 30 years ago. IPv6 is manifestly deployable for operators that want to. If

Re: V6 still not supported

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: > ... > Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage > visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative > effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: ... Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not and that glob

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/23/22 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: SIP won't displace all legacy PSTN any time soon. So it's a failure by your definition. And by your definition IPv6 was a failure before it was even born because the internet became popular -- something I'll add that nobody k

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: SIP won't displace all legacy PSTN any time soon. So it's a failure by your definition. And by your definition IPv6 was a failure before it was even born because the internet became popular -- something I'll add that nobody knew for certain when it was being designe

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/23/22 10:04 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/22/22 10:34 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: There is this other side: I'm dualstack, and I simply dont notice. Being in transition state indefinitely is not success. The other side is when you are v6 only and you dont notice. We

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/22/22 10:34 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: There is this other side: I'm dualstack, and I simply dont notice. Being in transition state indefinitely is not success. The other side is when you are v6 only and you dont notice. We arent there yet. Thats the failure. T

Re: V6 still not supported

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > ... > Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage > visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative > effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address shortage is > still a proble

RE: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC

(pthubert) Cc: Michael Thomas ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Dear Pascal: 0)So glad to see your recount of the history and the analysis! 1)We have recently formulated a proposal called EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4) that is very much along the line of

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/22/22 10:34 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: There is this other side: I'm dualstack, and I simply dont notice. Being in transition state indefinitely is not success. The other side is when you are v6 only and you dont notice. We arent there yet. Thats the failure. This is a terrible way to

Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC

risk taking, the PM wall can indeed be passed, as long as there's enough pressure from both side. For those interested, I'd be happy to chat on how IPv6 ND has evolved (on paper) but is stuck behind the PM wall as well. Keep safe; Pascal Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Michae

RE: V6 still not supported

se interested, I'd be happy to chat on how IPv6 ND has evolved (on paper) but is stuck behind the PM wall as well. Keep safe; Pascal Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of > Michael Thomas > Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 22:37 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V6 stil

Re: V6 still not supported

George Michaelson wrote: Thats partly why I find a huge personal disconnect with "failure" -It hasn't failed the way DECnet failed. Far from it. Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative ef

Re: V6 still not supported

b...@theworld.com wrote: We know we need to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles but electric cars, at least at this point, leave quite a bit to be desired like battery technology (materials needed, disposal, cost, electricity generation, etc.) Suppose syngas becomes economical. Who said we hav

Re: V6 still not supported

On March 22, 2022 at 11:53 jmai...@jmaimon.com (Joe Maimon) wrote: > 25 years to not achieve global domination opens the door to become > obsoleted before it does. Pretty sure that would be more bad than good. Not uncommon, but the problem is: Obsoleted by what exactly? We're kind of in a si

Re: V6 still not supported

I would normally not contribute to this, but I think having been a passive participant of the IPng mail lists through the 80s-90s I like the quality of reflecting "did we get what we wanted". I'm not writing here as an RIR employee (which I am) but as somebody who was along for the ride. We didn't

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/22/22 4:58 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My experience with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't g

Re: V6 still not supported

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My experience > with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't give a > shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If the

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: john, fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make a decision” my take was that cidr had done a lo

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 21, 2022, at 12:21, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG writes: > >> Virtually every useful flow of packets in one direction requires a >> relatively symmetrical flow of packets in the other direction. > > Packet captures are useful without anything being returned. It's not

Re: V6 still not supported

> But I was unclear, not asking about v4 vs. v6, but about caring for / > contributing to evolution of network protocols, or not. > > Some evolution has happened in the IPv6 world, more could happen, so > it gets better. Or throw the baby? maybe you're talking to the wrong guy. i gave a lot of b

RE: V6 still not supported

> -Original Message- > From: Randy Bush > Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 16:38 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > > > Which side are you on? > > hint: this is an operators

Re: V6 still not supported

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote: Hi: IPv4 is 40 years old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old timers. 25 years to not achieve global domination opens the door to become obsoleted before it does. Pretty sure that would be more bad than good. The rest of the

Re: V6 still not supported

> Which side are you on? hint: this is an operators' list. we are forced to be on all 'sides'. this pain gives us the privilege of whining a lot. randy

RE: V6 still not supported

Hi: IPv4 is 40 years old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old timers. Since then, networks have evolved dramatically, with new physical media like wireless that hates broadcasts, and new logical constructs like overlays in cloud and SD WAN which require new IP abstractions a

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: The characterization that the IAB somehow struck back with the IPng decision implies a level of direction over the decision which simply did not exist. I understand that that is your theory. That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics" involved, but rather that such

Re: V6 still not supported

john, fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance > That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but > rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make > a decision” my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical

Re: V6 still not supported

> On 22 Mar 2022, at 4:08 AM, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > >> - There was an open call for proposals. >> - We had many submissions: Nimrod, PIP, SIP, TUBA, IPAE, CATNIP (TP/IX), ... >> - SIP absorbed IPAE, and then PIP merged with SIP to form SIPP >> - Three final proposals CATNIP, TUBA, SIPP >

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: IAB hideously striked back to make IPv6 something a lot worse than CLNP and XNS. Alas, the above characterization doesn't even come close to the actual history of IPng – That's too recent. First, as I wrote: : TUBA is TCP/UDP over CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) d

Re: Standards Compliant Mail Client Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203211201.AYC

On 3/21/22 1:57 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: > Glancing at the headers, it appears as if NANOG is hosted on a Mailman > mailing list. As such, I believe that you could change your > subscription to use MIME formatted digest, which should include more > proper RFC-822 copies of the messages

Re: Standards Compliant Mail Client Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203211201.AYC

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:22 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 1)" so it's not a chore to tell what thread you're even replying to? ": >I am lost by your statement. I start each of my reply by quoting a phrase > or sentence of the message that I am responding to. You've created 18 mail thre

Re: V6 still not supported

On 21 Mar 2022, at 12:42 PM, John Curran wrote: > ... > > This is all quite well covered by the IPv6 recommendation document - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 > > (a document which probably should be required reading for those > c

Re: V6 still not supported

Owen DeLong via NANOG writes: > Virtually every useful flow of packets in one direction requires a > relatively symmetrical flow of packets in the other direction. Packet captures are useful without anything being returned. It's not uncommon to use some sort of unidirectional tunnel to transport

Re: V6 still not supported

On 20 Mar 2022, at 5:09 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > However, as William Allen Simpson wrote: > >> Then, the powers that be declared that IPv6 should have 128-bit >> addresses, and a host of committees were setup with competing CLNP >> (TUBA) co-chairs. They incorporated many ideas of CLNP and

Re: V6 still not supported

tween smaller and bigger address spaces. > It is the same disruptive as the introduction of IPv6. > Eduard > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Delany > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 7:25 AM >

Re: Standards Compliant Mail Client Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203211201.AYC

On 3/21/22 10:21 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: 1)    " so it's not a chore to tell what thread you're even replying to?   ":    I am lost by your statement. Abe, all of your replies that I've seen in the past few days have been brand new threads (or possibly replies to yourself). None of your r

Standards Compliant Mail Client Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203211201.AYC

Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:36:40 +0100 (CET) From:b...@uu3.net To:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII While Im dont like IPv6, I see it as a bad idea. >From my knowledge I dont see a way of extending IPv4

RE: V6 still not supported

Subject: Re: V6 still not supported On 19Mar22, Matt Hoppes allegedly wrote: > So, while it's true that a 192.168.0.1 computer couldn't connect to a > 43.23.0.0.12.168.0.1 computer, without a software patch - that patch > would be very simple and quick to deploy Let's ca

Re: V6 still not supported

Matt Hoppes wrote: At this point I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch applied to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death. A problem is that, a software patch is enough to upgrade an IPv4 host IPv6 capable. :-) Anyway, with TUPLE (TCP and UDP with Port Length Extensio

Re: V6 still not supported

nt to set it up the way I see fit. Not everyone is going to ask RIPE/LIR was address space for his small network. Isnt that too much burden? -- Original message -- From: Owen DeLong To: b...@uu3.net Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022

Re: V6 still not supported

Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG wrote: I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To me back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address. Then I suppose, like me, you were in favor of the TUBA proposal? :) TUBA is TCP/UDP over CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) de

Re: V6 still not supported

- On Mar 19, 2022, at 6:44 PM, Matt Hoppes mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net wrote: > After a time of transition, all clients would be running 128 bit > addresses (or whatever length was determined to be helpful). What you describe is literally IPv6. > Just like with IPv6, there would be

Re: V6 still not supported

On 19Mar22, Matt Hoppes allegedly wrote: > So, while it's true that a 192.168.0.1 computer couldn't connect to a > 43.23.0.0.12.168.0.1 computer, without a software patch - that patch > would be very simple and quick to deploy Let's call this ipv4++ Question: How does 192.168.0.1 learn about 4

Re: V6 still not supported

It appears that Matt Hoppes said: >Just like with IPv6, there would be a transition period, but during that >time software updates would very easily bring equipment up to spec much >faster and quicker. > >Eventually, 192.168.0.1 would be represented (for example) as >0.0.0.0.192.168.0.1 (or som

Re: V6 still not supported

ally think this is important, I will refer you to what > is called ULA in IPv6. It’s pretty much all the same problems of RFC1918 > minus the high probability of collision when merging two networks. > > > >> Just my 2 cents again ;) > > > > I think you have over-valued

Re: V6 still not supported

nus the high probability of collision when merging two networks. Just my 2 cents again ;) I think you have over-valued it. Owen -- Original message -- From: Matt Hoppes To: Joe Maimon , b...@theworld.com, Tom Beecher Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Dat

Re: V6 still not supported

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 03:32, wrote: > I'll mention, as I often do at this point in this conversation over > the past few decades, that nothing stops you from designing and > implementing such a network and, for demonstration / proof of concept > purposes at least, floating it on top of IP. > > B

Re: V6 still not supported

I'll mention, as I often do at this point in this conversation over the past few decades, that nothing stops you from designing and implementing such a network and, for demonstration / proof of concept purposes at least, floating it on top of IP. Build a better mouse trap... On March 17, 2022 a

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/18/22 6:18 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: I remember in the 80s getting into a rather detailed debate with an OSI fan about how OSI put at least authorization into what we'd call the IP layer roughly, CLNP/CLNS/TP0-4. A lot of it came down to you send me your initial handshake and I first s

Re: V6 still not supported

I remember in the 80s getting into a rather detailed debate with an OSI fan about how OSI put at least authorization into what we'd call the IP layer roughly, CLNP/CLNS/TP0-4. A lot of it came down to you send me your initial handshake and I first see if you're authorized and if not reject you r

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/18/22 2:32 PM, sur...@mauigateway.com wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 13:47:00 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: I'd really like to understand what the requirements that are specific to v6 are that make it so much harder or bloated. Not product availability, but actual things that make it difficu

Re: V6 still not supported

  On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 13:47:00 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: I'd really like to understand what the requirements that are specific to v6 are that make it so much harder or bloated. Not product availability, but actual things that make it difficult to deploy. -

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/18/22 1:31 PM, Nathan Angelacos wrote: On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 13:17 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: We weren't part of the wars. What I saw was what eventually became ipv6 and I remember talking to one of my coworkers about how hard he thought it would be to implement. He concurred that he di

Re: V6 still not supported

>Tom Beecher > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:34:19 -0500 > > At this point I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch > applied > to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death. > >> >>

Re: V6 still not supported

On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 13:17 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > > We weren't part of the wars. What I saw was what eventually became ipv6 > and I remember talking to one of my coworkers about how hard he > thought it would be to implement. He concurred that he didn't think it > would be any big de

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/18/22 12:54 PM, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote: Michael Thomas writes: I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To me back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address. Then I suppose, like me, you were in favor of the TUBA proposal? :) We weren't part of the war

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas writes: > I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To me > back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address. Then I suppose, like me, you were in favor of the TUBA proposal? :) -tih -- Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the sig

Re: V6 still not supported

anog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:52:32 -0700 On 3/17/22 3:30 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote: It seems team developing IPv6 had ONE way of doing things, with is actually recipe for disaster. Why? Because they were building an IP protocol. Something that will be

Re: V6 still not supported

It appears that Matt Hoppes said: >At this point I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch >applied to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death. The people at the IETF may be shortsighted, but not *that* shortsighted. If adding 16 more /8's would have been enough, they would

<    1   2   3   4   >