Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Indeed. And nobody is stopping anyone from offering it—I think we know how
to do it. So I don't see a real issue here—we don't actually have to pick.
What I'm reacting to is the apparent assertion that we shouldn't try to
improve IPv6 stacks—that e.g. implementing rule 5.5 correctly is pointless.
I don't agree with that.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:32 AM Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> > Honestly, it feels to me like we are converging on something that works,
> and you are tired of it and are therefore proposing to snatch defeat from
> the jaws of victory.
> >
> > It’s taken a long time to do this because the market pressure isn’t
> there, not because it’s impossible to do.
>
> It’s taken a long time for nothing to happen.
> Nothing has continued to happen.
>
> There are millions of IPv6 nodes deployed.
> That’s not trivial to upgrade.
>
> No, it’s not impossible to do. All the pieces to do it have been described
> for years.
> But just like SHIM6, ILNP, end to end IPsec, Multicast, IP Mobility, that
> doesn’t guarantee success.
>
> Don’t know what kind of Herculean effort would be required. Interops and
> bakeoffs, IPv6 ready testing program, lots of guidance to application
> developers, new socket abstractions…
>
> The other multi-homing mechanisms gives better (for some definition of)
> multi-homing with none of the host changes required.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
>
>
>
>