Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2021, at 13:26 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I hope not, both for IPv6 sake and for the network users. We dont know how much longer the goal will take, there is 
> > materializing a real possibility we will never quite reach it, and the potholes on the way are pretty rough.
> By “the only way out is through” I meant that the only way we can get back to anything resembling mono-stack is, in 
> fact, to complete the transition to IPv6.

The question is how? Waiting for everyone or nearly everyone to dual 
stack, the current strategy, is awful. Like pulling gum off a shoe.

> > And as the trip winds on, the landscape is changing, not necessarily for the better.
> The IPv4 landscape will continue to get worse and worse. It cannot possibly get better, there just aren’t enough 
> addresses for that.

I was referring to the more general network landscape, the governance 
system, the end of p2p, balkanization, etc, all trends and shifts that 
become more likely and entrenched the longer IPv6 lags and the scarcer 
IPv4 becomes.

> > One more "any decade now" and another IPv4 replacement/extension might just happen on the scene and catch on, rendering 
> > IPv6 the most wasteful global technical debacle to date.
> If that’s what it takes to move forward with a protocol that has enough addresses, then so be it. I’m not attached to 
> IPv6 particularly, but I recognize that IPv4 can’t keep up. As such, IPv6 is just the best current candidate. If 
> someone offers a better choice, I’m all for it.

Whose to say it would be a proper p2p system? I know you believe 
strongly in that and want it fully restored, at least on the protocol level.

> > >   Unfortunately, the IPv6 resistant forces
> > > are making that hard for everyone else.
> > >
> > > Owen
> > You say that as if it was a surprise, when it should not have been, and you say that as if something can be done about 
> > it, which we should know by now cannot be the primary focus, since it cannot be done in any timely fashion. If at all.
> It’s not a surprise, but it is a tragedy.
>
> There are things that can be done about it, but nobody currently wants to do them.

So lets make the conversation revolve around what can be done to 
actually advance IPv6, and what we should know by now is that convincing 
or coercing deployment with the current state of affairs does not have 
enough horsepower to get IPv6 anywhere far anytime soon.

> > Its time to throw mud on the wall and see what sticks. Dual stack and wait is an ongoing failure slouching to disaster.
> IPv4 is an ongoing failure slouching to disaster, but the IPv6-resistant among us remain in denial about that.

Who is this "us"? Anybody even discussing IPv6 in a public forum is well 
ahead of the curve. Unfortunately. All early adopters. Real Early.
> At some point, we are going to have to make a choice about how much longer we want to keep letting them hold us back. 
> It will not be an easy choice, it will not be convenient, and it will not be simple.
>
> The question is how much more pain an dhow much longer will it take before the choice becomes less difficult than the 
> wait?
>
> Owen
Exactly what does this choice look like? Turn off IPv4 when its fully 
functional? Only the have-nots may make the choice not to deploy IPv4 
sometime in the future, and for them, its not going to be a real choice.


Joe