Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 9/24/21 10:53 AM, borg () uu3 net wrote:
> Well, I see IPv6 as double failure really. First, IPv6 itself is too
> different from IPv4. What Internet wanted is IPv4+ (aka IPv4 with
> bigger address space, likely 64bit). Of course we could not extend IPv4,
> so having new protocol is fine. It should just fix problem (do we have other
> problems I am not aware of with IPv4?) of address space and thats it.
> Im happy with IPv4, after 30+ years of usage we pretty much fixed all
> problems we had.
But that is what ipv6 delivers -- a 64 bit routing prefix. Am I to take 
it that a whopping 16 bytes of extra addressing information breaks the 
internet? And all of the second system syndrome stuff was always 
separable just like any other IETF protocol. you implement what is 
needed and ignore all of the rest -- there is no IETF police after all.

I can understand the sound and fury when people were trying to make this 
work on 56kb modems, but with speeds well over 1G it seems sort of archaic.

Mike