nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 22:24:14 -0400
I'd flagged this to reply, but sadly am a bit behind.... On 3/10/22 11:02 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
IPv6 is technologically superior to IPv4, there's no doubt about that. It is vastly inferior when it comes to understanding what is going on by your average sysadmin, network engineer, IT helpdesk person -- it is just far too complicated. Even the wording is confusing, e.g. router/neighbor "solicitation/advertisement" instead of "request/reply".
I'd wanted to clearly distinguish this from the old methods: This is intended to replace ARP, ICMP Router Advertisement, ICMP Redirect, ICMP Information, ICMP Mask, and OSPF Hello in the [IPv6] environment. There are also elements of the OSI ES-IS and IS-IS Hello. We were forward looking to deployments of thousands of systems per link, rather than the 30 maximum under then current ethernet standards. We needed fewer announcements, less chatty traffic, and more specific traffic designation. We also prioritized network security. Moreover requiring addresses be ephemeral, such that applications would not be able to tie authentication/authorization to an IPv6 address and would be motivated to use cryptographic security. Unfortunately, later committees decided that rather than a single simpler secured address assignment scheme, we needed unsecured SLAAC and duplicate DHCPv6. Three ways to do the same thing are always a recipe for disaster.
IPv6 is a case study in how all too often human factors are not considered in the design of engineering projects. [...]
Reminder: I was an operator and one of the original NANOG members. We spent a lot of time considering human factors. I'd pioneered the "Operational Considerations" section of the original draft RFCs. IPv6 is a case study of what happens with committee-itis. The small design team worked well. On 3/16/22 9:03 PM, John Gilmore wrote: > Given the billions of people who eat and sleep for HOURS every day, I > think I am doing pretty well by just coordinating three people part-time > trying to improve IPv4 a little bit. [...] > Please tell me where this excellent effort is underway?
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported Ca By (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Christopher Morrow (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Gary E. Miller (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Robert L Mathews (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matthew Walster (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported William Allen Simpson (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported William Allen Simpson (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Saku Ytti (Mar 16)
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported Matthew Huff (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Dave Bell (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported Matthew Huff (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)