Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush <randy () psg com 
> <mailto:randy () psg com>> wrote:
>
>     real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained.  the transition plan was
>     dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years.  the 93
>     transition mechanisms were desperate add-ons when v4 did not go away.
>     and dual stack does not scale, as it requires v4 space proportional to
>     deployed v6 space.
>
>
> What I find most peculiar about this whole rant (not just yours but 
> the whole thread) is that I may be the only one who found implementing 
> IPv6 with dual stack completely trivial and a non issue? There is no 
> scale issue nor any of the other rubbish.
>
> Baldur
The essential point is that your dual stack is barely relevant until 
every stack is dual. Which is impossible without CGNAT.

It also turns out that is barely relevant how easy it may have been for you.

Joe