Re: V6 still not supported

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

> On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> > From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
> - extension headers
> - SLAAC instead of DHCP
> Everything else is minor.

There’s no such thing as SLAAC instead of DHCP… There’s SLACC in addition to DHCP and operators
are free to choose the solution that best fits their network.

I suppose the argument could be made that Android is SLAAC instead of DHCP, but I don’t buy that as a
complete showstopper these days. I do wish Lorenzo and Google would pull their collective crania out of
their hind quarters on this issue, but my vote is to treat Android as damage and route around it.

> Enterprises could easily ignore EH.
> Carriers could test EH for closed domains and support.
> I do not see a problem with EHs.

EHs do provide a few additional attack vectors, especially against untested or poorly tested code and especially
when you consider the potential to construct a several-K long chain of EH and map it onto 568 octet fragments.

> Hence, the primary blocking entity for IPv6 adoption is Google: they do not support DHCPv6 for the most popular OS.
> Whatever else the community would develop may be blocked by some monopoly in the same easy way.
> No point to change IPv6 to IPv6-
> Typical market pressure on such a company is not applicable here because:
> 1) Google is too big and powerful
> 2) Enterprises do not understand why they need IPv6 - they do not want to spend cycles on this pressure.
> Deadlock.

Enterprises that don’t understand why they need IPv6 wouldn’t implement it quickly even if Android suddenly
released DHCPv6 support tomorrow.

I understand that this is your pet issue and I even agree with you to about Google being on the wrong side of it.

However, if you honestly believe it is the number 1 blocker for enterprise deployment of IPv6, you are deluding
yourself.

Owen

> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:35 AM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
>
> On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote:
>
> > I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
>
> Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives?
>
> 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol that
>   magically creates a better and quicker transition?
>
> 2. Drop ipv6 and extend above the network layer for the forseeable future? By extend I
>   mean things which only introduce ipv4-compatible changes: NATs, TURN, CDN at the edge,
>   application overlays and other higher layer solutions.
>
> 3. Live with ipv6 and continue to engineer simpler, better, easier and no-brainer
>   deployments?
>
> I'll admit it risks being a "sunk cost falacy" argument to perpetuate ipv6, but are the alternatives so clear that 
> we're really ready to drop ipv6?
>
>
> > so much as IPv6 has not yet achieved its goal.
>
> As someone previously mentioned, "legacy" support can have an extremely long tail which might superficially make 
> "achieving a goal" look like a failure.
>
> Forget ss7 and SIP, what about 100LL vs unleaded petrol or 1/2" bolts vs 13mm bolts? Both must be 50 years in the 
> making with many more years to come. The glacial grind of displacing legacy tech is hardly unique to network 
> protocols.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, the goal of replacing ipv4 with ipv6 has really only had a relatively short life-time 
> compared to many other tech transitions. Perhaps it's time to adopt the patience of the physical world?
>
>
> Mark.