[124671] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sat Apr 3 15:08:18 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE08FE6C73@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:07:27 -1000
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:25 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> The point is that v6 was a bad solution to the problem. =20
Well, yes, but...
> Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while
> creating a whole bunch more that we will have. =20
Not really. The only problem IPv6 really solves (that couldn't be =
solved in one way or another in IPv4) was the limited amount of address =
space. Well, OK. IPv6 also does stateless autoconfiguration for folks =
who care about that, but you can (after much battle with the IETF) =
mostly ignore that if you don't care.
IPv6 doesn't, unfortunately, solve the real problem which is routing =
system scalability, but that's a separate rant.
> And they made v4 incompatible with v6 rather really addressing the =
problem. =20
How would you propose making going from a smaller fixed address space to =
a larger one backwards compatible? How would you deal with the myriad =
of applications that 'know' an IP address fits into a 32 bit "int" and =
make use of that fact?
> I am not saying we can change it at this point but I am saying we =
should
> learn from it and never, ever, do things this way again.
Which is, I think, why some folks argue for more conservatism in address =
allocation policy.
Regards,
-drc
