nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 05:15:13 -0400
On 14 Sep 2021, at 3:46 AM, Eliot Lear <lear () ofcourseimright com> wrote:
…. There is no evidence that any other design choices on the table at the time would have gotten us transitioned any faster, and a lot of evidence and analysis that the exact opposite is more likely.
Elliot - If by “design choices” you mean the criteria that we set forth for the new protocol (IPng), then that’s potentially true - it’s fairly challenging to hypothecate what impact different technical criteria would have had on the outcome. If by “design choices” you mean the tradeoffs accepted in selecting a particular candidate protocol and declaring victory, then I’d strongly disagree. I believe that we had the appropriate technical criteria for IPng (very nicely compiled and edited by Craig Patridge and Frank Kastenholz in RFC1726) and then made conscious decisions to disregard those very criteria in order to “make a decision” & “move forward.” All of the IPng proposals where completely deficient with respect to transition capabilities. In the rush to make a IPng decision, the actual IPng Transition Criteria [1] that mandated a straightforward transition plan from IPv4 was simply acknowledged and then declared as “resolved" because we would also simultaneously form some working groups to study all of the transition requirements and made good on the transition criteria via future deliverables...(deliverables that were subsequently not delivered on) The right answer would have been to formally and critically evaluate each of the candidate protocols against the requirements and not make any selection until candidate presented itself that actually met the required technical criteria. Instead, IPv6 transition was left as an afterthought for the operator community to solve, and thus the battles with the IETF on NAT-based transition for nearly two decades to get this basic technical requirement met. FYI, /John Disclaimer: my views alone - made from 100% recycled electrons. === [1] The actual IPng Transition criteria (per RFC 1726) are as follows - " 5.5 Transition CRITERION The protocol must have a straightforward transition plan from the current IPv4. DISCUSSION A smooth, orderly, transition from IPv4 to IPng is needed. If we can't transition to the new protocol, then no matter how wonderful it is, we'll never get to it. We believe that it is not possible to have a "flag-day" form of transition in which all hosts and routers must change over at once. The size, complexity, and distributed administration of the Internet make such a cutover impossible. Rather, IPng will need to co-exist with IPv4 for some period of time. There are a number of ways to achieve this co-existence such as requiring hosts to support two stacks, converting between protocols, or using backward compatible extensions to IPv4. Each scheme has its strengths and weaknesses, which have to be weighed. Furthermore, we note that, in all probability, there will be IPv4 hosts on the Internet effectively forever. IPng must provide mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng has become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet. The absence of a rational and well-defined transition plan is not acceptable. Indeed, the difficulty of running a network that is transitioning from IPv4 to IPng must be minimized. (A good target is that running a mixed IPv4-IPng network should be no more and preferably less difficult than running IPv4 in parallel with existing non-IP protocols). " In short: 1) The protocol must have a straightforward transition plan 2) A number of ways to achieve this which are to be explored 3) IPng must provide backward-compatibility to IPv4-only hosts 4) The absence of a well-defined transition plan is not acceptable ===
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Jay Hennigan (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Levine (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Ca By (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Jared Mauch (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Eliot Lear (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Curran (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Jeroen Massar via NANOG (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Eliot Lear (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Curran (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Eliot Lear (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Curran (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Randy Bush (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Curran (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 14)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Michael Thomas (Sep 15)