nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:52:32 -0700
On 3/17/22 3:30 AM, borg () uu3 net wrote:
As somebody who designed IoT things back when v6 was being designed, my only question was whether it would get deployed, not whether it was too complex. It was honestly a lot easier than a completely new protocol stack like appletalk or netware.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 using globally by ALL networks around. Not some local IOT (useless) shit used here and there. Thats why such IP protocol should be follow KISS concept and flexibility. Some people have different vision how to run network. And because Inter-net is an AS to AS network they should have right to do so.
I don't see what the OS layer has to do with anything. An operating system that doesn't get patches is even worse than app level code that doesn't.In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly.
Its same about other weird things embedded into IPv6 that probably should go layer up. And now people wonder why IPv6 adoption is crap and there is high resistance. IPv4 made mistakes too, but hell, it was the first. It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space. Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve non-existant (or already fixed) problems.
There were tons of things that were slapped onto IP that were basically experimental like ARP and bootp. CIDR didn't even exist back then.
Also: security, for example, was not an already fixed problem. Far from it. Mike
Current thread:
- RE: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Nathan Angelacos (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported surfer (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Curran (Mar 21)