Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 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 <gnu () toad com> wrote:

> John Levine <johnl () 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