> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Delany wrote:
>> On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
>> Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives?
>>
>> 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other
>> protocol that
>> magically creates a better and quicker transition?
>>
>> 2. Drop ipv6 and extend above the network layer for the forseeable future?
>> By extend I
>> mean things which only introduce ipv4-compatible changes: NATs, TURN, CDN
>> at the edge,
>> application overlays and other higher layer solutions.
>>
>> 3. Live with ipv6 and continue to engineer simpler, better, easier and
>> no-brainer
>> deployments?
>>
>> I'll admit it risks being a "sunk cost falacy" argument to perpetuate ipv6,
>> but are the
>> alternatives so clear that we're really ready to drop ipv6
>
> I most assuredly hope not. However this is not actually within any specific
> bodies absolute control. The overblown representation of the top down nature
> of internet design is a significant fallacy.
>
> If a vacuum persists and what fills that void is detrimental to IPv6 global
> deployment, it would be a significant setback. But the internet wont care.
One could argue that NAT44 and certainly NAT444 are exactly that.
> What you can do is try and preempt the vacuum.
I really wish we had done so prior to the popularization of IPv4 NAT.
> In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
>
> Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.
I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can
survive on an hour of air for 20 years.
240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it
were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for
IPv4.
I think that admitting that IPv4 simply doesn’t scale to the present day
internet, let alone beyond is a far better move than continuing to pretend its
heart is still beating on its own when it’s been on life support for more than
a decade with no signs of brain activity.
> By all means, continue to evangelize users and pressure vendors. But thats
> not enough. Make IPv6 more attractive, more utilitarian, more useful. Address
> and remove barriers and hurdles. And that means doing and accepting things
> that many have significant distaste for.
Here, I agree…
> Personally, that means that although I have long disliked proposals that keep
> moving to the left of the 128bit space, were I to believe it likely to
> increase deployment and momentum I would champion it in my own limited
> fashion much as I do 240/4.
Not sure what you mean by “moving to the left of the 128 bit space”.
We will obviously agree to disagree about 240/4 as we long have.
Owen
