[184312] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 1 21:05:04 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB2RJyjviZz=yoQu913hGrPYXXPGDAQ4Cj6kMd=npRuifQDBOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:58:59 -0700
To: Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I=E2=80=99m not at all tied up in a particular protocol.
Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is answer =
this simple question:
How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards compatible =
with existing
IPv4 hosts requiring no software modification on those hosts? Details =
matter here.
Handwaving about ASN32 doesn=E2=80=99t cut it.
If you can=E2=80=99t answer that, there=E2=80=99s really nothing to your =
argument.
Owen
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 17:56 , Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied =
up his identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage =
you all not to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one =
shot at life, so be your own person.
>=20
> this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage. feel free to be =
principled and have technical discussion but insults and attacks really =
have no place. so please just stop and relax.
>=20
> thanks,
>=20
> t
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com =
<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
> OK=E2=80=A6 Let=E2=80=99s look at the ASN32 process.
>=20
> Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in =
the path.
> Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes.
>=20
> So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 =
bits of address?
>=20
> Further, what mechanism do you propose for forwarding to the 128 bit =
destination by
> looking at the value in the 32 bit field?
>=20
> The closest I can come to a viable implementation of what you propose =
would be
> to encapsulate IPv6 packets between IPv6 compatible hosts in an IPv4 =
datagram
> which is pretty much what 6in4 would be.
>=20
> If you want the end host on the other side to be able to send a reply =
packet, then
> it pretty much has to be able to somehow handle that 128 bit reply =
address
> to set up the destination for the reply packet, no? (No such =
requirements for ASN32).
>=20
> Seriously, Todd, this is trolling pure and simple.
>=20
> Unless you have an actual complete mechanism for solving the problem, =
you=E2=80=99re just
> doing what you do best=E2=80=A6 Trolling.
>=20
> Admittedly, most of your trolling has enough comedic value that we =
laugh and get
> past it, but nonetheless, let=E2=80=99s see if you have a genuine =
solution to offer or if this
> is just bluster.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 16:52 , Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com =
<mailto:toddunder@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of =
the
> > embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out =
it's
> > naive and ignorant in a genius way.
> >
> > Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can =
be
> > properly done.
> >
> > This was harder but not impossible. We just chose badly for decades =
and now
> > we have NAT *and* a dumb migration.
> >
> > Oh well.
> >
> > T
> > On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk =
<mailto:mcn4@leicester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote:
> >>> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with =
the
> >> rest
> >>> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but =
i guess
> >>> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about =
lessons
> >>> learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).
> >>
> >> Would be really interesting to know how you would propose
> >> squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we
> >> could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has
> >> available to save having to move to this new incompatible format.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4@le.ac.uk <mailto:mcn4@le.ac.uk>>
> >>
> >> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services,
> >> I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United =
Kingdom
> >>
> >> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp@le.ac.uk =
<mailto:ithelp@le.ac.uk>>
> >>
>=20
>=20
