Owen DeLong wrote:
Ironically, a timely move to dual stack would have meant that the IPv4
addresses needed for it were available, which would have allowed a
smooth transition to v6 with new sites being deployed v6-only and old
sites deprecating v4 at their leisure. Foot-dragging by those who saw
no incentive to be community minded indeed took us beyond the date
where this was feasible and transition mechanism hacks are the
inevitable and inferior result of that foot dragging.
Exactly. A timely migration using dual stack to avoid scarcity depended
on something that was always extremely unlikely to occur, and look: it
did not. This is the exact nature of the failure that is the IPv6
deployment.
However, the longer this drags on the greater the odds that things we dont want
will happen and irrevocably alter the landscape in ways we would not have
wanted.
Or eventually, people will see something they want that is enabled by restoring
the end-to-end model and that will drive demand for IPv6 and things we do want
will happen.
Keep on hoping. Just so happens that all trends are currently in the
opposite direction.
Worse for your analogy, electric car success can be wholly attributed to both
new technology and manufacturers finally making cars that people actually
wanted, and not just for the smug value.
OK, so what new technology can be deployed that will drive adoption of a new
addressing scheme that doesn’t suffer from the shortages built in to IPv4?
All I would like is for any innovators in the space to stop being
hampered by the same ideologues who have brought us to this sorry state
of affairs.
Mechanisms that allow IPv6 only nodes to access the entirety|majority of
the actual internet would be highly advantageous at this point. The
reverse would be spectacular.
If I havent gotten the point across that this is what IPv6 actually needs to be
successful any time soon, there is little reason for continuing this
conversation.
You’ve done a great job of pointing out everything you think is wrong… You’ve
done nothing to offer any positive solutions to any of the problems raised for
either protocol.
And look how difficult it has been. You want I should do everything??
Before solutions can be offered that will actually be accepted, the
ideology based opposition must be brought around and convinced and
thereby silenced. We know this because we have seen this movie before.
Many solutions and proposals have been offered by many people much more
qualified than myself to do so, and were brought to the rocks due to
dual stack and anti-nat religion.
The goal should not be eventual IPv6 adoption by attrition. The goal should be
meaningful solutions to actual issues, now and real soon. Hopefully sustainable
ones, but the here and now means something to people living in it.
IPv6 adoption whether by attrition or other means is a solution to the actual
issue of address shortage. Ideally, getting others to recognize this and move
forward will provide a sustainable solution sooner rather than later, but the
lengths people will go to in order to avoid change are impressive.
Owen
Its a solution that doesnt solve anything anytime soon, which means more
ongoing failure, issues and collateral damage.
The lengths people will go to ignore change thats not very relevant to
them are not impressive, just predictable.
Joe
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
