Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

On 9/24/21 3:01 AM, borg () uu3 net wrote:
> Oh yeah, it would be very funny if this will really happen (new protocol).
> Im not happy with IPv6, and it seems many others too.

Is your dissatisfaction with the IPv6 protocol itself or is your 
dissatisfaction with the deployment / adoption of the IPv6 protocol?

I think that it's a very critical distinction.  Much like DoH as a 
protocol vs how some companies have chosen to utilize it.  Similar to 
IBM's computers vs what they were used for in the 1940's.

> This is short list how my ideal IPv6 proto looks like:
> - 64bit address space
>    more is not always better
> - loopback 0:0:0:1/48
> - soft LL 0:0:1-ffff:0/32 (Link Local)
> - RFC1918 address space 0:1-ffff:0:0/16
> - keep ARPs, ND wasnt great idea after all?
> - NAT support (because its everywhere these days)
> - IPv6 -> IPv4 interop (oneway)
>    we can put customers on IPv6, while keeping services dualstack
> - correct DHCP support (SLAAC wasnt great idea after all?)
>    I think its already in IPv6, but was an issue at the begining

I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I believe that the IPv6 that we 
have today effectively does all of those things.  At least 
functionality, perhaps with different values.

> If there are some weird requirements from others, put them into layer up.
> L3 needs to be simple (KISS concept), so its easy to implement and less
> prone to bugs.

How many of the hurtles to IPv6's deployment have been bugs in layer 3? 
It seems to me that most of the problems with IPv6 that I'm aware of are 
at other layers, significantly higher in, or on top of, the stack.

> And that IPv6 I would love to see and addapt right away :)

I'm of the opinion that IPv6 has worked quite well dual stack from about 
2005-2015.  It's only been in the last 5 or so years that I'm starting 
to see more problems with IPv6.  And all of the problems that I'm seeing 
are companies making business level decisions, way above layer 7, that 
negatively impact IPv6.  Reluctance to run an MX on IPv6 for business 
level decisions is definitely not a protocol, much less L3, problem.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature