nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: bzs () theworld com
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:18:08 -0400
I remember in the 80s getting into a rather detailed debate with an OSI fan about how OSI put at least authorization into what we'd call the IP layer roughly, CLNP/CLNS/TP0-4. A lot of it came down to you send me your initial handshake and I first see if you're authorized and if not reject you right there. They were quite obsessed with authorization because they were quite obsessed with, basically, billing for every connection, who do I charge this connection to? Particularly in the 80s it seemed way too much overhead at way too low of a level to me. Almost 40 years later and maybe they were on to something. Unfortunately I still suspect it would have thrown the baby right out with the bathwater. The overhead involved would have limited network nodes (at the time) to big, expensive boxes, like PBX's, with intricate authorization and billing mechanisms rather than what made TCP/IP take off. Even in 1985 you could get a fully functional TCP/IP system running in cheap hardware most anyone with a steady job could afford rather than relegate such systems to SNA-like server/client architectures probably requiring intimate integration into telcos. But we finally have done that with mobile phones! Just try running your own mobile phone network. Yay us! On March 17, 2022 at 18:52 mike () mtcc com (Michael Thomas) wrote:
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
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Current thread:
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported), (continued)
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Mar 28)
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Ca By (Mar 28)
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Joe Maimon (Mar 28)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 24)
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 23)
- RE: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Message not available
- Re: V6 still not supported R: 202203232156.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history John Gilmore (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history James R Cutler (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Randy Bush (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matt Hoppes (Mar 17)