Michael Thomas wrote:
On 3/23/22 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
IETF can't force people to adopt things, film at 11. They certainly
can't control people's saltiness from something that happened 30 years
ago. IPv6 is manifestly deployable for operators that want to. If
others don't want to deploy it in the face of the predictable address
crunch, that's on the operators and not anybody else. Vendors will
build patches and hacks and other abominations if somebody is willing
to pay for it. If you like CGN, by all means deploy it from a vendor
standpoint. If you don't like CGN either then, well, you're sort of
screwed. Going back and relitigating ipng is not ever going to happen.
Mike
Which is why the IETF should not engineer things under the assumption
that they can.
Which is why the IETF should not be citing IPv6 as cause to deny efforts
on IPv4.
Because as you say, at this point, even if you dont like CGN, the
internet is sort of screwed.
And the reasons that IPv6 is not deployed everywhere it could or even
should be are myriad. Perhaps unpredictable. That reasons would abound
was predictable.
Network A deploying IPv6 does not do nearly as much to help A as it does
when B-Z do, which is the core problem of IPv6 transition. You can
understand then that even in the face of shortage IPv6 is only one of
the options on the table at network A for short term alleviation. And
usually not even the one with most bang per buck. Those who can choose
D) all of the above, the rest prioritize based on resources and various
locally defined assessments and analysis. Also unpredictable, but
predictable that they would exist.
Bygones are bygones, but not if the behavior persists.
Yes, I understand referring to the IETF as an individual entity is
grossly oversimplifying.
Joe
