[137117] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Feb 9 15:08:14 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimqE_yXnBqO9HyrBVfrViLWhhYM+Kz_=M1W8yhF@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:05:50 +0100
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9 feb 2011, at 20:53, William Herrin wrote:
> * Carrier NAT buys us enough years to build an IPv4 successor
You're kidding, right? How long did it take exactly to get where we are =
now with IPv6? 18, 19 years? And yet there's still all kinds of stuff =
that isn't really ready for prime time yet.
> * Next protocol should really be designed to support interoperability
> with the old one from the bottom up. IPv6 does not
That's because it's not the headers that aren't incompatible (the =
protocol translation is ok even though it could have been a bit better) =
but the addresses. A system that knows about 32-bit addresses will just =
not talk to a system with a 128-bit address. Once we're at 128-bit =
addresses then we can migrate to IPvA (7 - 9 are already taken) without =
much trouble. But then, 32-bit ASes interoperate with 16-bit ones with =
no trouble and still after a decade the support for that is not nearly =
good enough, either.
