Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

[Roger Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

totaly agree - but look at the world today, all the proposals over the
years, operators don't care, they have their well known IPv4 world,
all they lack is more address and IPv6 provide that.



--- Roger J ---

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 3 June 2017 at 00:56, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Dear Lorenzo,
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>> Please stop trying to make IPv6 be the same as IPv4. That will take
>>> away our ability to make the Internet better once IPv4 is gone.
>>
>> I believe there to be tangible merit in making IPv6 feel and look more
>> like IPv4. Perhaps this becomes more apparent when one shifts the
>> innovation focus from layer-3 to higher layers.
>>
>> Making IPv6 look more like IPv4 (for instance through broader adoption
>> of DHCPv6 w/ routing options, and classlessness like in IPv4) will
>> positively impact IPv6 deployment.
>>
>
> I think that's the fundamental agenda here, although perhaps not
> realised. It is to devolve IPv6's capabilities and features to the
> point where IPv6 isn't really much more than IPv4 with a different
> packet format, and so the IPv4 operational practices people are
> comfortable with can be directly applied to IPv6 without change. This
> is because of the common human trait of intolerance of or resistance
> to change.
>
> If this proposal is accepted, then I think /120s will become the
> defacto subnet size, despite what the draft says about /64s being the
> recommended default. Here's the clue for why - RFC1918 addressed
> networks I've seen, where IPv4 address space doesn't need to be
> conserved (i.e., unlike public IPv4 address space), always use /24s as
> the defacto subnet size. "Same-same" is easier for us humans than
> "Same-different."
>
> Why do I have a different perspective? My first networking protocol
> was a more modern one than IPv4, Novell's IPX, derived from Xerox's
> XNS. Learning and operating IPv4 networks after operating IPX networks
> was a backwards step. The only major advantage that IPv4 provided over
> protocols designed in the 1980s and 1990s, such as IPX, Appletalk and
> CLNS, was that it provided organisations with Internet connectivity.
> On many other criteria, IPv4 was far inferior - entirely
> understandable, because it was fundamentally designed in the 1970s,
> and then adapted over time to cope with being used to build a global
> Internet work. It was never intended to be used to build a global
> internetwork connecting billions of devices -
>
> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-April/020488.html
>
> IPv6 is actually the first true protocol designed to suit the global
> "Internet" problem.
>
> I have a few horrible stories of seeing IPv4 routers with 4 x /24s or
> 25 x /26s on the same interface because renumbering and changing
> subnet masks of hosts into a single large enough subnet was more far
> expensive than sub-optimal forwarding across the same link. An
> impossible problem to have when the default subnet address space size
> far exceeds the practical link-layer node attachment limits (and in
> some cases impractical link-layer limits because of link layer
> "excessive" addressing - does an Ethernet really need 48 bit MAC
> addresses? Who's going to go close to attaching 2^46 nodes to one of
> them? The ND cache resource exhaustion type of problem also exists at
> layer 2 with switch tables ...)
>
> I don't want to experience or see people experience those sorts of
> IPv4 "right-sizing subnet" types of problems in IPv6.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------



-- 


Roger Jorgensen
[e-mail] / [e-mail]