Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

[jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>]

If then industry still hasn't adopted v6 full in 25 years maybe it's v6
that should be given up it, that it clearly wasn't what customers wanted.
Perhaps we should should have a small group working on the next iteration.

-jim

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 5:54 PM Jacques Latour <Jacques.Latour () cira ca> wrote:

> So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack
> IPv4/IPv6?
>
> When are we going to give up on IPv4?
>
> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
>
> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
>
>
>
> 😊
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca () nanog org> *On Behalf
> Of *Owen DeLong via NANOG
> *Sent:* March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> *To:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
>
>
> Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets
> introduced.
>
>
>
> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually
> impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the
> IETF since at least 2015.
>
>
>
> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then
> perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t
> like your idea.
>
>
>
> Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that
> your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It
> might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi, Justin:
>
>
>
> 1)    "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ...     ":
> After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For
> example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4
> enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please
> make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Abe (2022-03-26 18:42)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
>
> While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information,
> the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be
> defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP,
> among many other examples).  It's important to separate the ideas from the
> plumbing.
>
>
>
> That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what
> personal freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with
> an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
>
>
>
> Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way
> into wider use.  It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly
> mutated into a production service.  Why should we continue to expend effort
> to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into
> wider use?
>
>
>
> Is IPv6 a perfect protocol?  Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain
> point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> jms
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 3)    Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6):    I believe that there is a philosophic /
> logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in
> mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "*personal freedom*".
> Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their
> energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project
> attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial
> barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed
> right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility
> with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering
> discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but
> defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress,
> not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.