Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 24, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

Agreed, so the question boils down to what can be done to motivate the laggard content providers to get off the dime.

> > > 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.

There are so many potential useful things we could do with a restored e2e system that are simply not proactical today 
that yes, I consider that vital.

For one thing, I’m really tired of vendor cloud locking just because products need rendezvous hosts with public 
addresses.

> > > >  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.

I’m open to alternatives if you have any to offer.

> > > 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.

Everybody using the internet, but more importantly, the content providers that are resisting IPv6 deployment on their 
content are probably the biggest problem at this time.

> > 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.

IPv4 hasn’t been fully functional for more than a decade. At some point, the pain of continuing to wait for the 
laggards will become sufficient that those who have been running dual-stack will simply turn off IPv4 and leave the 
laggards behind. It might tragically not happen in my lifetime, but it has to happen at some point.

Owen