IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 21 March 2022 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 DC0CC3A1B8D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 mAYHWFFhq6Wj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (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 4C7283A1171 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id l8so16766462pfu.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pwnJl2POjGlCauRdjjX/QwKtYGDafK4z8T6RLYsl/9s=; b=oV3Vl7oIfoO58Yho+T8111ZhOJYKNxv+UFq2ZTdsGBdfFinHO82lqISwQ/LIr3Xiq8 pPewy836AVLojcv0yvRNB7eezmMFqlXFJd97t0vjCmjl/YbLa2kSd9pWS3weLkw8NpnP CNgWvTlsLlUuhSXqKm/8+trP0Qf/HE3qh3/sKodQC0zo2McXZgRs3kGZrPKk9kXv46W5 JjzYbpYuotdEtQkWKe0erFVDTGFvm0l9iGuJ7f6s2SKe1ydPDZxIQ42tdNLjmSAXPAjg t4hwErJWQfRneSzcSmQisb3678SUPWlHueOFS3t4/hCfE16wwmT1bxJBajQWCmReHIzI BSnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pwnJl2POjGlCauRdjjX/QwKtYGDafK4z8T6RLYsl/9s=; b=A2KWuzY6C3SOTxYS9iqT3o83UtCKIN/soufK8ZBycm7TewmFICnIV9G0Q7D03j6By4 hybohEP9PUByZNUoEny+Z4IdJW6Zsd6ba2YDGDHkatHQIBciUsOOtDjCkfQ2WK7FtqyZ KOM06ng5NZ+6/wOhFbjrCfq4dJ2O4IlQuW1LHzBNVrorVwYIAy4YgBIQO/MSfpMyzy1i z0XHOlIE93/TlyiGFBApTk3aVO+EiRk4tOP9VivPSCDf0ZMyl2zYddHdghX9iUfGcTFQ 3D8fuZW/CT5UuinXySjDNAgyooVw7LJiZqKPCQMk+hIFFJJizmkIMjBVav5qhWQDRevN boYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531OaeHDzPe3Q7iqlofQVrsh4ZoMKDHYVqcspBlW8DDeHUt1JlOq VEGtmUPeIySGYPJo3yRv0+UNWyThc9hqEQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxo2wub1hffNyIk0b2YFzergBszA3jT+uddL++9QrQ+/HE7UnyBrqtAqCdCUIdV7ho8YUePvg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5fc2:0:b0:383:6f01:e5ad with SMTP id t185-20020a635fc2000000b003836f01e5admr802537pgb.108.1647902536798; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 77-20020a621450000000b004fa923bb57asm6808842pfu.201.2022.03.21.15.42.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:42:12 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VsE8TffFDG1EqEJ7o_2MbhJGlO0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
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: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:42:20 -0000

On 22-Mar-22 10:50, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2022, at 2:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Why didn't those idiots make IPv6 backward-compatible with IPv4?"
> 
> To which the obvious answer is “IPv4 isn’t forward compatible with anything. It was designed to be replaced.”

As has been said, in different words, many times on The Register forums. I think there are several IPv6ists who respond there, under various pseudonyms. (The Register is not a place where many people care to use real names.)

But unfortunately the usual reply is to repeat that we were idiots not to 
make IPv6 backwards-compatible (often accompanied by one of the many ideas proposed but found impossible in the early 1990s). Either that, or a plaintive "too hard" argument.

I agree with Jordi that multihoming is a genuine impediment. What isn't generally realised is that it's a problem of scale when considering at least 10,000,000 enterprises, much more than it's a problem of IPv6 itself.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email