[184316] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Underwood)
Thu Oct 1 21:39:09 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <9FB08507-F739-40CA-AA98-6D35B61F7C95@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 21:37:03 -0400
From: Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented
late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is
trolling.
In any case I'm giving up on that conversation. And this whole one. It goes
nowhere.
And this is why v6 is where it is: true believers. Instead of a simple,
practical matter of engineering a transition we got 15 years of advocacy.
It makes the sleazy v4 transfer market look appealing. :)
T
On Oct 1, 2015 8:59 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> 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 thi=
s
> 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:
>
> 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 al=
l
> not to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at
> life, so be your own person.
>
> 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 plac=
e.
> so please just stop and relax.
>
> thanks,
>
> t
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
>> OK=E2=80=A6 Let=E2=80=99s look at the ASN32 process.
>>
>> Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in th=
e
>> path.
>> Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes.
>>
>> So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bit=
s
>> of address?
>>
>> Further, what mechanism do you propose for forwarding to the 128 bit
>> destination by
>> looking at the value in the 32 bit field?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 addre=
ss
>> to set up the destination for the reply packet, no? (No such requirement=
s
>> for ASN32).
>>
>> Seriously, Todd, this is trolling pure and simple.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 soluti=
on to
>> offer or if this
>> is just bluster.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 16:52 , Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of th=
e
>> > 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 an=
d
>> now
>> > we have NAT *and* a dumb migration.
>> >
>> > Oh well.
>> >
>> > T
>> > On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <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 th=
e
>> >> 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 lesson=
s
>> >>> 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>
>> >>
>> >> 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>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
