Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 26 February 2020 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C47F3A1186 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:35:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K6YYoiqtLgIn for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC3EE3A1185 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c84so2217790wme.4 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:35:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=jmDsY5i+TsP8l9O/H1GYSaV0DXvpOBRd9dpry4/oL7E=; b=e6x67zlMxNrqiUg9ZjJTb7cM/6HNyw7h0Q/BouigK38ynIpOhslyAr2qAPsnB88sHh 5XTLTUGJXbQFLvb4a7+FD0O+WEz7GbKveFmpQSj7w0TBaNLkok21qKevc8M/TpHAcC2A Mw9PcinKW5DDHy7nTMw7hkHPqNvAKYJ7PKuvHtrzhmdT+phWKGTEVaKy52gEdxsoShZh nWd1tW53BQVI01d3gKITKaHZCQRi1q8ca23IsmRP1FPnGU/1U8sB6L6IvlO7vwBNRTPp QkB1gmi8cpAIuinVxPIY4kE9hwdDNLk9/1eKfpqp3IWpsGtDRBDb1/VVaCjbwrY/S0ry ZbcA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=jmDsY5i+TsP8l9O/H1GYSaV0DXvpOBRd9dpry4/oL7E=; b=efduo8rbRrnPfF5Iyn22/KyTYU5qVAOC5cjPZ37nTonoqoxQLciUCiGTOnIzlC0DgY CSVNHXsfZtMs2tEWk/qTS6LdxrKiNRgpfMfX+DSN0KW6mD2RwIoZgpx20WfDLuCZnCwV KsfcDMaHRUq2+FLUw1zaqK214tvzfDAQQa9x+dk9vwBJI893DKSElSnFOQXlWjrmf/9M IsBtdpOtV0ilh5/d4o78go3hYsBzIKV/c54zIe+Pvc4owd14DCIhkJml5Wu2Tg3EnHXa mVdPpKQ4ZhgOVaoVBF+NR9QLnSppDJAVhzr5wP1zPazYHBtPQwh05eQ5iTZONwShAgg9 txLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWjTTLa989SBC0rhiXwQVvcLkY9UwoKMUMsOk1bTyTB2YJxrCID wPUTGuTdRD41nnTHqr0oRHA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+fVZoT5w52D8u68RHndwjl3R5v+cRzMjWqqMvot08gskJFb5fHEsacQQTt1cWakOTAk9NCQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2302:: with SMTP id 2mr4597352wmo.66.1582709728806; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id v8sm2413202wrw.2.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 01:35:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F4E6276D-6F0A-4B3A-80D8-202736AFC18A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:35:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: <AB27A3D9EB2EA6D6C3A31351@PSB>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <>, Mark Andrews <>, Khaled Omar <>, IETF Rinse Repeat <>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <>
To: John C Klensin <>
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <AB27A3D9EB2EA6D6C3A31351@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:35:34 -0000

> On 20 Feb 2020, at 02:18, John C Klensin <> wrote:
>> We do need Governments to ban the selling of new IPv4-only
>> domestic devices (CPE routers, TV's, game boxes, etc.).
> We have been there and seen that or variations on it tried.  In
> some alternate reality, the last attempts were so successful
> that TCP/IP and all other competing solutions died out, leaving
> the world running entirely on an updated version of the OSI
> stack (either connectionless or connection mode) today.  In the
> reality in which we (or most of us) actually live, government
> attempts to advance networking by requiring some technologies
> and banning others mostly lead to technological paralysis and
> increased costs for all concerned.

Although ISO 8473 would have been a better platform than the IPv6 as we eventually settled on.

- It could support multiple address types, of variable length, which SR is teaching us that we need.
- It had a better checksum than that available in the transport layer, and would have meant that we could have avoided compulsory UDP c/s
- The protocol suite supported connection oriented which MPLS taught us that we needed.

Before my time, but was IPv4 designed before or after the Internet was released from the government to the public?

Much of the success of the mobile phone industry arrises through standardisation, and if you read Stephen Temple’s book you understand the influence that the regulator (using spectrum availability as a leaver) had on forcing harmonisation.

So maybe governments do not always get it wrong.

- Stewart