RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Good point, John, I may have glossed over it too quickly. Definitely worth considering.
Still, on multi-access links I wonder if there may be challenges but certainly something
we should consider.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 10:44 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> 
> Isn’t that a good application for link-level header compression, as Philip alludes to being used on good ol’ SLIP and PPP?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> —John
> 
> > On Jun 1, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> >
> > Philip, good message but I do see an element of truth in what the original poster
> > was trying to communicate. In aviation, we often deal with wireless links with
> > bandwidth less than 1Mbps - sometimes even *much* less. Asking those links
> > to carry at least two IPv6 addresses per packet is a considerable commitment
> > of resources, but that is our current plan. Should we be open to considering
> > alternatives?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> >> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 9:45 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> >>
> >> In your letter dated Fri, 29 May 2020 19:12:34 +0200 you wrote:
> >>> IMHO, it is a misguided dogma to think that RFC8200 128 bit
> >>> addresses IPv6 is a one-size-fits-all solution not only for
> >>> what it was built for, the Internet, but also all arbitrary controlled
> >>> networks - for the infinite future!
> >>
> >> For IPv4, one-size-fits-all was a good thing. Anybody who remembers
> >> the nightmare of many different network protocols, all slightly different
> >> knows how great it was to have just one protocol.
> >>
> >> Even in the early days, one-size-fits-all was a bit of a problem. I remember
> >> SLIP and PPP header compression trying do deal with big headers on slow links.
> >>
> >> Right now we have IPv6, which can address all devices in the world. Which is
> >> great for software, no need to worry where something is, just generate an
> >> IPv6 packet and it will get there somehow.
> >>
> >> If we look at the overhead of IPv6 then certainly at speed of 100 Mbps and
> >> higher, the effect of bigger addresses is left in the noise.
> >>
> >> Obviously, IPv6 on slow links in a limited domain is not a great fit. Does
> >> that mean that IPv6 has to change? What is the benefit for all those devices
> >> that are on fast links and have no problem?
> >>
> >>> IoT with IPv6 is an extreme pain (header compression, MTU).
> >>> Most controlled networks do not even want global addresses (security,
> >>> segment based app-gateway architectures, ...).
> >>
> >> My first question would be, why not use IPv4 if address size and MTU are
> >> a problem? IPv4 is certainly a mature technology.
> >>
> >>> 16-bit/32-bit/48-bit address sizes would be highly desirable.
> >>> Even the 1980'th CLNP network protocol had variable sized addresses.
> >>
> >> Nobody who does low level software wants veriable size anything.
> >>
> >> If I compare processing an IPv4 header (which is variable size) with an IPv6
> >> header, then dealing with an IPv6 header is so much easier. With variable
> >> length addresses that would only get worse.
> >>
> >>> IPv6 has not solved core problems to be even equal to L2 switching:
> >>> plug routers together, get automatic connectivity, no bother about addresses.
> >>> CLNP was a lot closer to that goal too.
> >>
> >> Both DHCPv6 PD and homenet deal with this problem.
> >>
> >>> but think really about another
> >>> instance of IPv6-NG, but this time backward compatible.
> >>
> >> I doubt that the world is waiting for a third protocol that brings a
> >> completely new set of issues.
> >>
> >> And I have no clue what a backward compatible internet protocol is supposed
> >> to look like. People have complained for years that IPv6 is not backward
> >> compatible with IPv4, but in all that time I have never seen a sensible
> >> protocol that is actually backward compatible with IPv4.
> >>
> >>> If we continue to proliferate this "one-size-fits-all" myth,
> >>> then we are just continuing to extend our own version of
> >>> a winchester mystery house and kill our industry.
> >>
> >> I doubt that the IETF has any power to stop a new local networking protocol.
> >>
> >> If, for example, IoT needs a light weight local networking protocol, then
> >> anybody can just design it. It may help adoption if there is an easy way
> >> to convert to and from IPv6, but such a protocol can easily exist outside
> >> the internet world.
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!UJAdvTzn_Z3n89OKnyACbWXrj22QQm2ZQ2bl3eO4TithKf6Zoo08UEqtwY0FLw$
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!UJAdvTzn_Z3n89OKnyACbWXrj22QQm2ZQ2bl3eO4TithKf6Zoo08UEqtwY0FLw$
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------