IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 03 May 2022 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E37C14F722; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zhOd_pkJunkP; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E2A7C1594A3; Tue, 3 May 2022 06:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1499038BFC; Tue, 3 May 2022 09:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MBADD1WWxqDk; Tue, 3 May 2022 09:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD20038BC7; Tue, 3 May 2022 09:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1651584472; bh=38v2URpfTPBSCoz7PxrEl4+gruMRM6UyOXS5pyyLuj4=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=uoo66bx/PzPghrz5vMbrZc0KtRfTLy3vJm+zqrVssXvQ/dwC5qZev7lWBQx/HuLRe SasTa52V38h8i3aVDnLf3OxxwM529Yvk8gQ93ZqXtonTN9nQuYwS1s/kw71qUzA5jf 6Lxe1E4HJIuep46aTJUQ+YeXkj9hhC0PuwLFw/vfbwCKkVNLqxB5KHruOcwP2k3z94 MhgVBSLpPFikbLkFxripjdNCB8RkSLliSMdukkLWP8KFgLzZORuzbDUKLThiLolBU9 Zk/g3ffSUAFhTemSnysKXmjRhnJLe/1zj5PRLoGkgqn5TZhh319uomSupuHWxJOEGq trReuZ+4OmU1A==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8515E147; Tue, 3 May 2022 09:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-11@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org, 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <YnDTxRS+r6BZDS0L@Space.Net>
References: <CAPt1N1ncVkekecS=dBHSR3WtaEMruy55Udxy0WSMGTgbN24pKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5+tA8-Zqka-vZ9jRL3wn0dtfuJj0ECx_k9prwyS2ypisaPtw@mail.gmail.com> <FB031B76-7E88-4824-876F-D1A05F8D2215@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAFU7BAST-oNGpy4JvODDsf=8eS69hV8XCi8OgEHBkkoujRN3Rw@mail.gmail.com> <699f556a3eac41179a80d2cc8749a191@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wiebCOPmtcEOJ3rOaZEpHE7qFZZTf5KLWybSsL6rOd9Q@mail.gmail.com> <626B2E07.5070601@jmaimon.com> <m1nlQyw-0000F4C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BN8PR07MB7076EE22F0BFDB2D192B065D95C19@BN8PR07MB7076.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <m1nlmPp-0000JaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <YnDTxRS+r6BZDS0L@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 09:14:48 -0400
Message-ID: <21382.1651583688@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-rOg0EFC8502ES0t-wQOI10_zy4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 13:15:00 -0000

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
    > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 08:53:43AM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
    >> So the conclusing seems to be: we have no clue how much enterprise is
    >> spending on telecommunications, but because enterprise has a large
    >> market cap, it must be important.

    > My take is something else.  I want to relieve software developers
    > (like, me) from having to bother with dual-stack, and focus on good
    > IPv6 support.

I would go further and suggest that there are efforts required to make
certain communications models work in IPv4, which are much easier in IPv6.

The ubiquity of IPv6-LL for instance makes many discovery and local
connectivity problems significantly simpler.  It's a shame that docker went
all IPv4 inside, because IPv6-LL is essentially ideal for all the
container<->database connections that are brokered.

I think that there are certain niches where IPv6 can be used even if there
isn't Internet connectivity.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email