Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

 Imho, ipv6 is just like ipv4. It does not dispatch the old errors:
Unicast, multicast,anycast are different services and needs to be addressed by differentiating service bits in the header – and not by different address ranges! Also: Traffic congestion is a problem inmidst the network and needs to be solved by partial detouring. More than a decade ago, I elaborated algorithm+protocol how to utilize ALL adjacent links for forwarding:  to ALL those neighbor-s(!) closer  to the destination,  to equally-distant neighbors,  to 1-hop-more-remote neighbors and for the worst case by means of 2 encapsulations to a far more distant(also relatively to the destination) intermediate node, followed to  some remote but closer-to-the-destination intermediate node. Included IP header info hereby would haved avoided any endless looping.  That was for OSPF networks. With respect to interdomain, I elaborated TARA whose concept is well-known because applied by Google-map-routing: All nodes participate to enable the view of several zooming levels with accordingly skimmed topologies. The next-hop was looked-up from 1, respective 3 offset-tables rather than by binary search from a 850 000 entries-sized BGP table.

Invain. So I still think IPv6 will never fly.

Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Fred Baker <fredbakersba@gmail.com>
An: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: architecture-discuss <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Verschickt: Di, 25. Feb. 2020 19:16
Betreff: Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

On Feb 24, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> In private / controlled networks, the choices are not only IPv4 vs.
> IPv6 or their interop, but also (SR-)MPLS and even more so L2 ethernet
> switching.

You make some important points, but...

We have had several countries discuss pulling off the Internet or doing something pretty disruptive, such as unilaterally changing from DNS to something else or imposing government-controlled firewalls. My point to them - and I have spoken with more than one - is that disrupting Internet communications affects the flow of international commerce, and therefore money, into their countries.

The same point applies in this case. If a company wants to internally only use <something> as a link layer protocol, that's their choice, but if they step very far away from IPv4 and IPv6, it means that they can't do business with their vendors and their customers - they have to in some way translate or overlay at that boundary. What has been beneficial with Internet technologies since they were invented was that one no longer had to think about global deployments of BBN 1822, X.25, Ethernet, or any of a long list of other things; they became carriers for a common architecture enabling global communications._______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss