IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 22 April 2022 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
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 C82283A07A0; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGoTtmQp6e0v; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6313A078A; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id k4so1380578plk.7; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WSD9FXKiQDGQRE49STY4ZFl4WXN/n90WI9awMv2S+yo=; b=Gn+VS+DnHp5Os2eypEG92L+dqrs5jCkJgtji8A5BSF3qH7uFG6UN+f5CxQJtNUthz2 EHTZKQ+I6ANU+UPND78mZeuRCVCx2lSNVEO27GTCZzTc2fUtM7mL+GA0m0vinlZaW6bL gYQoJVPR43PqmFjK12t70CbmphesIWBmgKSOMInTFDOrzyBcnd/0DCFaCfWrXKr1eEoL q9Odd9jV7bQNEHB6r2GpBJ0Of+U+hZelS0D/SE7yKfDd8AkF1hyGGGfNemVlJ9iOxEdd bc2vAVxklx0KcQTefNdzF5UxofOpHiTh2+tTOVZK6Dbjjh0n2uHsPmxx2xc9V6gcCg1p YybA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WSD9FXKiQDGQRE49STY4ZFl4WXN/n90WI9awMv2S+yo=; b=S/uN/TXYLgl5i0HuPPrhN7zwsTi71jBwRMpWufKDGHcNMF7usRGKVo09sNG2/0aLeB wkrrHGYUiT7leuYB+j/5Q9Hs5NohK5w1V9JC4PF+pCgRIMz1qxGET9EcA5yBelR7uFl3 EqN5h9fN8BVWhgtgxTa+sNx+xqCSGFyUUnWHeMRC67+pZDERFs8gSONE6FTxDjXiYhDy du0y0lyzwb6aOSR4irqgVfr9CLNgZwM3MJe6Yl0Azctpi+pzQ4NQoz5IDMhIr8zDtHPL R99RpAOqI9GK7jyvrTiERIqjGiUPbZR5g9Wuh6SBePFg7SXddU62efLDR4MjdVVDVTpz 5Vlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533zT6LgXong2boj+UTkHh9F+MGCjn5neIjVBbjocktRS8kacIwQ 48XtAx7PzrGNl35NAKBP83yk0moiZtM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7DfNsnG7xP6rKOZRyOWt9FfFXZ4sz+pEssaRjnnbVSVPVkxpZN4XJFn8wIftOERfx/6Sffg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:cf05:b0:156:2aa:6e13 with SMTP id i5-20020a170902cf0500b0015602aa6e13mr6096742plg.137.1650655413940; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:8801:d00b:e800:41ee:f04c:ff50:5f0f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l13-20020a056a00140d00b004e13da93eaasm3463757pfu.62.2022.04.22.12.23.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.11\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3008655b-2af6-7df0-1302-63cf81bad8b4@edgeuno.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:23:32 -0700
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9064DD1F-48F4-4A17-BDEC-72C0308B9314@gmail.com>
References: <3008655b-2af6-7df0-1302-63cf81bad8b4@edgeuno.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/98Eq8l3nc1tgqSTqOYSbw_oLJR0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:23:40 -0000


> On Apr 22, 2022, at 4:48 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando.gont=40edgeuno.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Isn't IPv6 *fully* incompatible with IPv4?

I hear this a lot, and I think it's backwards, because it leads one to the presupposition that if only <something> had been done differently, IPv6 would have been backward-compatible with IPv4. "Those stupid people" and all that.

No, IPv4 isn't forward-compatible with *anything*, even putting some set of bits into IPv4 options. Backward-compatibility implies that the new capability can be deployed without changing any existing systems. What could have been deployed without changing all of the existing-and-deployed systems to accommodate it?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email