On 15 Feb 2021, at 2:01 AM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> Complain to your vendors about not implementing RFC 8305, RFC 6724, and
> RFC 7078. RFC 8305 or RFC6724 + RFC 7078 would fix your issue.
>
> Thats Happy Eyeballs and tuneable address selection rules.
Mark -
You’ve properly pointed out IPv6 can indeed be readily & safely
deployed today using modern equipment that supports a reasonable transition
approach… full agreement there.
Interestingly enough, you’ve also pointed out the not-so-secret reason
why it's taken so long to get sizable deployment of IPv6 – that is, despite us
knowing that we needed "a straightforward transition plan” on day one that
documented how to move from IPv4 to IPng (aka IPv6), we opted in 1995 to select
a next generation protocol which lacked any meaningful transition plan and
instead left that nasty transition topic as an exercise for the reader and/or
addressed by postulated outputs from newly-defined working groups… thus the
underlying reason for the lost decades of creative engineering efforts in
gap-filling by those who came after and had to actually build working networks
and applications using IPv6.
For what it’s worth, I do think we’re finally 98 or 99% of the way
there, but it has resulted some very real costs - rampant industry confusion,
loss of standards credibility, etc. There’s some real lessons to be had here –
as one who was in the IP Directorate at the time (and thus sharing in the
blame), I know I would have done quite a bit differently, but it’s unclear if
there’s been any systematic look-back or institutional learning coming out of
the entire experience.
FYI,
/John
