Re: V6 still not supported

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

> What I would LOVE to see that someone will pop in with new IP protocol
> that is much more similar to IPv4, just extends address space and fixes
> some well know issues. (for example remove netmask and use prefixlen/CIDR).

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding… Netmask and Prefixlen/CIDR are just
Different ways of representing the exact same thing. While it’s true that prior to CIDR, one
COULD implement discontiguous net masks, this was rare in actual practice and had no
real use, so nothing was lost in eliminating that capability.

Internal to the operating system, regardless of whether presentation is as a CIDR length
or a netmask, it’s still stored and compared against addresses as a bitfield.

> Other importand aspect is some kind of IPvX -> IPv4 interop, so you can
> quickly put clients into new protocol and they have access to entire IPv4
> internet out of the box.

Client A has a 128 bit address.
Client B has a 32 bit address and does not understand packets with 128-bit addresses.

Please explain how these two clients interoperate.

That is literally what you are asking for here. Math says it doesn’t work.

> Also, we need to please enterprises so we need largish RFC1918 space too.

Why? Why does RFC-1918 space need to exist at all? Why not simply use transparent addressing and stop mutilating packet 
headers?

However, if you really think this is important, I will refer you to what is called ULA in IPv6. It’s pretty much all 
the same problems of RFC1918 minus the high probability of collision when merging two networks.

> Just my 2 cents again ;)

I think you have over-valued it.

Owen

> ---------- Original message ----------
>
> From: Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>
> To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>, bzs () theworld com,
>    Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:34:19 -0500
>
> At this point I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch applied
> to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death.
>
> > Its not impossible to envision that IPv4 does not ever go away but actually
> > gets extended in such a way that it obsoletes IPv6. The longer this drags out
> > the less implausible it seems.
> >
> > Joe