Re: V6 still not supported

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 3/17/22 3:30 AM, borg () uu3 net wrote:
> It seems team developing IPv6 had ONE way of doing things,
> with is actually recipe for disaster. Why? Because they were building an IP
> protocol. Something that will be using globally by ALL networks around.
> Not some local IOT (useless) shit used here and there.
> Thats why such IP protocol should be follow KISS concept and flexibility.
> Some people have different vision how to run network. And because
> Inter-net is an AS to AS network they should have right to do so.
As somebody who designed IoT things back when v6 was being designed, my 
only question was whether it would get deployed, not whether it was too 
complex. It was honestly a lot easier than a completely new protocol 
stack like appletalk or netware.
> In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because
> crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly.
I don't see what the OS layer has to do with anything. An operating 
system that doesn't get patches is even worse than app level code that 
doesn't.
> Its same about other weird things embedded into IPv6 that probably
> should go layer up. And now people wonder why IPv6 adoption is crap and
> there is high resistance. IPv4 made mistakes too, but hell, it was the first.
>
> It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space.
> Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve
> non-existant (or already fixed) problems.

There were tons of things that were slapped onto IP that were basically 
experimental like ARP and bootp. CIDR didn't even exist back then.

Also: security, for example, was not an already fixed problem. Far from it.

Mike