Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election

[Elad Cohen <elad () netstyle io>]

LOL funny seeing you changing your mind by 180 degrees when someone you know in the community writing to you the exact 
same thing.

Grow a backbone please.
________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> on behalf of Brielle <bruns () 2mbit com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:57 PM
To: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election

On 5/13/2020 12:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Hi Brielle,
>
> http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
>
> Someone said much as you did way back in 2007. It bugged me, this
> defeatism that said there was no way IPv4 could have been
> incrementally updated to support more addresses, that a greenfield
> protocol was the only path forward. So I designed an upgrade factoring
> in the need for pre- and post-upgrade stacks and networks to
> interoperate over a period of years. It took all of 4 printed pages.
>
> It's clear IPv6 is the path forward. It was clear in 2007. But don't
> for a second believe that's because IPv4 could not have been upgraded
> in place. That's a failure of imagination.


Interesting, thank you for the insight and some detailed breakdown.  I'm
actually really glad someone with some more experience jumped in with
some actual background in this effort.

One thing that cropped up in my mind from the late 90s and AFAIK still
goes on today - isn't it pretty well documented that more then a small
number of 'professional' firewalls have a habit of just outright
discarding/rejecting/barfing on packets with options in them that they
don't recognize?

IE: PMTU/ECN blackhole redux.

Of course since IPx1 requires some stack upgrades, so that point is moot
really.

Sigh.  Back to the original thought that its just easier to go IPv6 then
try to 'fix' whats already out there.



--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org    /     http://www.ahbl.org