nanog mailing list archives
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 19:30:50 -0500
David Conrad wrote:
Had the titanic stayed afloat some hours more, many more would have survived and been rescued when assistance eventually arrived. So that makes this a debate over whether this is deck chair re-arrangement or something more meaningful.Barry, On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, bzs () theworld com wrote:We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very limited successAccording to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years. https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 has it around 30%. Given an Internet population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and wrongly) argued to mean 1.5-2B people are using IPv6. For a transition to a technology that the vast majority of people who pay the bills will neither notice nor care about, and for which the business case typically needs projection way past the normal quarterly focus of shareholders, that seems pretty successful to me.But back to the latest proposal to rearrange deck chairs on the IPv4 Titanic, the fundamental and obvious flaw is the assertion of "commenting out one line code”. There isn’t “one line of code”. There are literally _billions_ of instances of “one line of code”, the vast majority of which need to be changed/deployed/tested with absolutely no business case to do so that isn’t better met with deploying IPv6+IPv4aaS. I believe this has been pointed out numerous times, but it falls on deaf ears, so the discussion gets a bit tedious.Regards, -drc
As I and others have pointed out, it depends on how it is used. And perhaps the attempt should be made regardless of knowing in advance which it will be.
You assertion needs some back of the envelope numbers, which once provided, I suspect will render your estimate grossly incorrect.
You can hardly attempt to convince anybody that 240/4 as unicast would not be the more trivial change made in any of these products natural life cycle points.
Especially as we have examples of what that type of effort might look like. IGTFY and here
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.GA21168 () cisco com/The burdensome position is ridiculous even more so when stated with a straight face.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201503.AYC, (continued)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201503.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Mark Tinka (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Tom Beecher (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC bzs (Nov 21)
- Fwd: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Rubens Kuhl (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Fred Baker (Nov 26)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC David Conrad (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Jay Hennigan (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Joe Maimon (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC David Conrad (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC John Curran (Nov 22)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC John Curran (Nov 22)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 22)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC John Curran (Nov 22)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Tom Beecher (Nov 22)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC John Curran (Nov 22)