[124681] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Sat Apr 3 21:38:35 2010
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>,
Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100404104500.1c7b6d49@opy.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746=
ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
> > No.=A0 But that isn't the point.=A0 The point is
> that v6 was a bad solution
> > to the problem.=A0 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
> Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't
> know how
> simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols
> were designed
> more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than
> IPv4.
Spoken like someone who has forgotten how much {fun|trouble} cable range + =
zones were...
IPX, AppleTalk, VINES, DECNet, SNA, and all of the other protocol suites wh=
ich were kicking around in the 80s and early 90s each had the "one thing th=
ey do really really well," but none of them were sufficiently flexible, ext=
ensible, easy, or cheap to capture the market.
Examples of some things which those protocols *didn't* do well include (obv=
iously the list is different for each individual protocol):
* interdomain routing - most were optimized for single-administrative contr=
ol networks
* multicast
* handle an encryption layer at layer 3
* cheap + easy to implement, no license required
* distributed centralized administration (i.e. DHCP servers)
* tolerate a wide variety of {link|connection} performance characteristics=
=20
> I think IPv6 has not just learnt from the history of IPv4,
> it has also learnt from the history of other protocols.=20
Sadly, though, it also picked up some of the mistaken optimizations from th=
e other protocols. The mess that has been made of RA+SLAAC+DHCPv6+DNS is s=
omething which can't be described as "elegant," and I certainly don't find =
it an improvement over IPv4 DHCP+DNS.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:=20
http://www.listentothefranchise.com=0A=0A=0A
