Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Jeroen Massar via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On 20210916, at 11:15, John Curran <jcurran () istaff org> wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2021, at 3:46 AM, Eliot Lear <lear () ofcourseimright com> wrote:
> > ….
> > There is no evidence that any other design choices on the table at the time would have gotten us transitioned any 
> > faster, and a lot of evidence and analysis that the exact opposite is more likely.  
>
> Elliot - 
>
> If by “design choices” you mean the criteria that we set forth for the new protocol (IPng), then that’s potentially 
> true - it’s fairly challenging to hypothecate what impact different technical criteria would have had on the outcome. 
>
> If by “design choices” you mean the tradeoffs accepted in selecting a particular candidate protocol and declaring 
> victory, then I’d strongly disagree.  I believe that we had the appropriate technical criteria for IPng (very nicely 
> compiled and edited by Craig Patridge and Frank Kastenholz in RFC1726) and then made conscious decisions to disregard 
> those very criteria in order to “make a decision” & “move forward.”
>
> All of the IPng proposals where completely deficient with respect to transition capabilities.

Would not have mattered: one has to upgrade a large portion of the code/hardware present in the network anyway.

And ~1995 was a completely different time from 1998, or 2001 let alone 2021 in number of devices and deployment; thus 
anything one would have guessed would have been off.

The only thing that might have worked is a flag day, but unless some large org sets that in the near future, we'll just 
have the very very slow death thing that is happening and I bet that IPv4 will nicely outlive us all on this list and 
the ones that where there when IPng started.

Greets,
 Jeroen