nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 19:43:18 -0500
bzs () theworld com wrote:
I could offer a more philosophical assessment of IPv6 deployment. Perhaps we're there, we're doing fine. This is how it is going to go. It's out there, it works (glitches aside), those who want it use it tho they can't force others to use it so still need to maintain a dual-stack if that's of importance to them. Perhaps that's a reasonable complaint, the cost and effort of accommodating those who haven't deployed IPv6.
If this rather healthy viewpoint was more generally pervasive IPv4 efforts would not be met with such hysteria.
As a protocol and product, IPv6 is a success. It works, its deployed, its utilized.Maybe it will take 50 years (we're easily half-way there.) Put another way, by what objective measure is IPv6 deployment seen as failing? Other than individuals' impatience. Was there a generally agreed upon timeline which wasn't lived up to, for example?
As the cure and solution to address scarcity experienced by network users and operators, it has already failed in that goal, repetitively and continually.
It was supposed to do that using the additional time CIDR bequeathed to IPv4. Fail.
It was supposed to do that upon IANA exhaustion. Fail. It was supposed to do that upon RiR exhaustion. Annual Fail.It was supposed to do that prior to commercialization and commoditization of IPv4. Fail.
It was supposed to do that before E2E on the internet became a quaint historical footnote. Fail.
IPv6 has failed the Internet.Maybe, hopefully, this is the year or decade it finally stops being the perennial failure, but the history of fail induced net-negatives does not get erased by eventual success, and worse, the future will likely continue to contain artifacts of those failures.
Its not impossible to envision that IPv4 does not ever go away but actually gets extended in such a way that it obsoletes IPv6. The longer this drags out the less implausible it seems.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history John Gilmore (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history James R Cutler (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Randy Bush (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matt Hoppes (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 19)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Levine (Mar 19)
- Re: V6 still not supported Mark Delany (Mar 19)
- RE: V6 still not supported Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Mar 21)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 21)
- Re: V6 still not supported Bjørn Mork (Mar 21)