On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:39 AM <b...@uu3.net> wrote: > Oh well.. Then how you gonna solve the el-cheapo SOHO multihoming? > > Im currently dual homed, having 2 uplinks, RFC1918 LAN, doing policy > routing and NATing however I want.. > > why of COURSE you do source address selection! so simple!
> > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> > To: b...@uu3.net > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 00:28:40 +1000 > > > > > On 28 Sep 2021, at 19:19, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > > > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? > > Yes! Remember routable does not mean that it is reachable from outside. > > > And if they change ISP they will get new range? > > Yes! What do you think DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is all about? It > has only been specified for 18 years now. The IPv6 address ranges ISP > get for RIRs are based on handing out multiple /64 to every customer. > > > Doesnt sounds nice to me.. But I guess I its just me > > It sounds like you need to do some reading about IPv6, then actually > use it. 100s of millions of home customers are get routable IPv6 prefixes > today around the world. It's not scary. Things don˙˙t blow up. > > > Yeah I am aware of putting additional aliases on loopback. > > > > No futher comment about ND and DHCP. > > > > Well, at a time when TCP/IP was invented, 32bit address space looked > > pretty much big... I dont blame them than they didnt predicted future.. > > Unfortunately, cant say the same about IPv6 R&D taskforce ;) > > > > Hah, multicast... Ill skip it. > > > > Followed change to support CIDR, Internet was still small and considered > > R&D field... > > > > Okey, I think its no need to futher pollute NANOG list with this. > > I said at the begining that this is just my subjective opinion. > > This will not help IPv6 case at all. > > > > At least from my (2) standpoint it would be really cool that IPv6 > > would be finally addopted. > > > > I just wanted to share my toughts about why im not big fan of IPv6. > > I also wanted to hear other opinions what they dislike about it, no > > list of how cool IPv6 is and how everyone should use it right away. > > > > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > > > From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> > > To: b...@uu3.net > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC > > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 12:01:22 -0700 > > > > > > > >> On Sep 25, 2021, at 01:57 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > >> > >> Well, I think we should not compare IPX to IPv4 because those protocols > >> were made to handle completly different networks? > >> > >> Yeah, IPv6 is new, but its more like revolution instead of evolution. > >> > >> Well, Industry seems to addapt things quickly when they are good enough. > >> Better things replace worse. Of course its not always the case, > sometimes > >> things are being forced here.. And thats how I feel about IPv6.. > > > > Sometimes worse things replace better. NAT, for example was definitely > not > > an improvement to IPv4. It was a necessary evil intended to be a > temporary > > fix. > > > >> > >> IPv4 Lookback is 127.0.0.1/8 > >> You can use bind IPs within range by applications. Handy > >> In IPv6 its not the case. > > > > You are free to assign any additional IPv6 addresses you like to the > loopback > > interface and then bind them to applications. Personally, I haven˙˙t > found a > > particularly good use for this, but it is possible. > > > > It does mean that instead of wasting 1/256th of the entire address space > > in every context on loopbacks, you have to assign what you need there, > > but you can easily assign a /64 prefix to a loopback interface and have > > applications bind within range. > > > >> IPv6 ND brings new problems that has been (painfully?) fixed in IPv4. > >> Tables overflows, attacks and DDoS.. Why to repeat history again? > > > > Table overflows weren˙˙t fixed in IPv4 and have nothing to do with ND vs. > > ARP. Table overflows are (not really an issue in my experience) the > > result of a larger address space than the memory available for the L2 > > forwarding table on switches or the ND table on hosts. This isn˙˙t due > > to a difference in ND vs. ARP. It is due to the fact that there are no > > 64-bit networks in IPv4, but they are commonplace in IPv6. > > > > Mostly this has been solved in software by managing table discards more > > effectively. > > > >> IPv6 DHCP: Im not using IPv6, but I heard ppl talking about some > >> issues. If this is not the case, im sorry. Its been a while when I last > time > >> played with IPv6... > > > > I am using IPv6 and I˙˙m using IPv6 DHCP. I haven˙˙t encountered any > significant > > problems with it other than some minor inconveniences introduced by the > ability > > to have different DUID types and vendors doing semi-obnoxious things > along that > > line. > > > >> IPv6 interop: yeah, I agree here.. But people involved with IPv6 should > >> think about some external IPv4 interop.. Internet was exploding at > 1997.. > >> Maybe they had hope that everyone upgrade like in CIDR case. And maybe > it > >> could happen if IPv6 wasnt so alien ;) > > > > It was thought about˙˙ It was considered. It was long pondered. Problem > was, > > nobody could come up with a way to overcome the fact that you can˙˙t put > > 128 bits of data in a 32 bit field without loss. > > > > IPv6 really isn˙˙t so alien, so I don˙˙t buy that argument. The software > changes > > necessary to implement IPv6 were significantly bigger than CIDR and IPv6 > > affected applications, not just network. There was no way around these > > two facts. The IPv6 network stack did get adopted and implemented nearly > > as fast as CIDR and virtually every OS, Switch, Router has had IPv6 > support > > for quite some time now at the network stack level. It is applications > and > > content providers that are lagging and they never did anything for CIDR. > > > >> As for IPv4 vs IPv6 complexity, again, why repeat history. > > > > What complexity? > > > >> Biggest IPv4 > >> mistake was IPv4 being classfull. It was fixed by bringing CIDR into > game. > > > > No, biggest IPv4 mistake was 32-bit addresses. A larger address would > have been > > inconvenient in hardware at the time, but it would have made IPv4 much > more > > scalable and would have allowed it to last significantly longer. > > > >> (Another big mistake was class E reservation...) > > > > Not really. It was a decision that made sense at the time. Class D > reservation > > made sense originally too. Without it, we wouldn˙˙t have had addresses > available > > to experiment with or develop multicast. > > > > There was no way to know at the time that decision was made that IPv4 > would run > > out of addresses before it would find some new thing to experiment with. > > > >> Internet was tiny at that time so everyone followed. > > > > Followed what, exactly? > > > >> Image something like this today? Same about IPv6.. it brings > >> forced network::endpoint probably due to IoT, sacrificing flexibility. > > > > I can˙˙t parse this into a meaningful comment. Can you clarify please? > > What is ˙˙forced network::endpoint˙˙ supposed to mean and what does it > > have to do with IoT? What flexibility has been sacrificed? > > > >> Again, I dont want to really defend my standpoint here. Its too late > for > >> that. I kinda regret now dropping into discussion... > > > > OK, so you want to make random comments which are not even necessarily > > true and then walk away from the discussion? I have trouble understanding > > that perspective. > > > > I˙˙m not trying to bash your position or you. I˙˙m trying to understand > your > > objections, figure out which ones are legitimate criticism of IPv6, which > > ones are legitimate criticism, but not actually IPv6, and which ones > > are simply factually incorrect. For the last category, I presume that > comes > > from your lack of actual IPv6 experience or some other form of ignorance > > and I˙˙d like to attempt useful education to address those. > > > > Owen > > > >> > >> > >> ---------- Original message ---------- > >> > >> From: Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > >> To: nanog@nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC > >> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:26:27 -0600 > >> > >> On 9/24/21 11:53 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote: > >>> Well, I see IPv6 as double failure really. > >> > >> I still feel like you are combining / conflating two distinct issues > into one > >> generalization. > >> > >>> First, IPv6 itself is too different from IPv4. > >> > >> Is it? Is it really? Is the delta between IPv4 and IPv6 greater than > the delta > >> between IPv4 and IPX? > >> > >> If anything, I think the delta between IPv4 and IPv6 is too small. > Small enough > >> that both IPv4 and IPv6 get treated as one protocol and thus a lot of > friction > >> between the multiple personalities therein. I also think that the > grouping of > >> IPv4 and IPv6 as one protocol is part of the downfall. > >> > >> More over if you think of IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack as analogous to the > >> multi-protocol networks of the '90s, and treat them as disparate > protocols that > >> serve similar purposes in (completely) different ways, a lot of the > friction > >> seems to make sense and as such becomes less friction through > understanding and > >> having reasonable expectations for the disparate protocols. > >> > >>> What Internet wanted is IPv4+ (aka IPv4 with bigger address space, > likely > >>> 64bit). Of course we could not extend IPv4, so having new protocol is > fine. > >> > >> I don't think you truly mean that having a new protocol is fine. > Because if you > >> did, I think you would treat IPv6 as a completely different protocol > from IPv4. > >> E.g. AppleTalk vs DECnet. After all, we effectively do have a new > protocol; > >> IPv6. > >> > >> IPv6 is as similar to IPv4 as Windows 2000 is similar to Windows 98. Or > >> "different" in place of "similar". > >> > >>> It should just fix problem (do we have other problems I am not aware > of with > >>> IPv4?) of address space and thats it. Im happy with IPv4, after 30+ > years of > >>> usage we pretty much fixed all problems we had. > >> > >> I disagree. > >> > >>> The second failure is adoption. Even if my IPv6 hate is not rational, > adoption > >>> of IPv6 is crap. If adoption would be much better, more IPv4 could be > used for > >>> legacy networks ;) So stuborn guys like me could be happy too ;) > >> > >> I blame the industry, not the IPv6 protocol, for the lackluster > adoption of > >> IPv6. > >> > >>> As for details, that list is just my dream IPv6 protocol ;) > >>> > >>> But lets talk about details: > >>> - Loopback on IPv6 is ::1/128 > >>> I have setups where I need more addresses there that are local only. > >>> Yeah I know, we can put extra aliases on interfaces etc.. but its > extra > >>> work and not w/o problems > >> > >> How does IPv6 differ from IPv4 in this context? > >> > >>> - IPv6 Link Local is forced. > >>> I mean, its always on interface, nevermind you assign static IP. > >>> LL is still there and gets in the way (OSPFv3... hell yeah) > >> > >> I agree that IPv6 addresses seem to accumulate on interfaces like IoT > devices do > >> on a network. But I don't see a technical problem with this in and of > itself. > >> -- I can't speak to OSPFv3 issues. > >> > >>> - ULA space, well.. its like RFC1918 but there are some issues with it > >>> (or at least was? maybe its fixed) like source IP selection on with > >>> multiple addresses. > >> > >> I consider this to be implementation issues and not a problem with the > protocol > >> itself. > >> > >>> - Neighbor Discovery protocol... quite a bit problems it created. > >> > >> Please elaborate. > >> > >>> What was wrong w/ good old ARP? I tought we fixed all those problems > >>> already like ARP poisoning via port security.. etc > >> > >> The apparent need to ""fix / address / respond to a protocol problem at > a lower > >> layer seems like a problem to me. > >> > >>> - NAT is there in IPv6 so no futher comments > >>> - DHCP start to get working on IPv6.. but it still pain sometimes > >> > >> What problems do you have with DHCP for IPv6? I've been using it for > the better > >> part of a decade without any known problems. What pain are you > experiencing? > >> > >>> And biggest problem, interop w/ IPv4 was completly failure. > >> > >> I agree that the interoperability between IPv4 and IPv6 is the tall > pole in the > >> tent. But I also believe that's to be expected when trying to > interoperate > >> disparate protocols. > >> > >>> From ground zero, I would expect that disparate protocols can't > interoperate > >> without external support, some of which requires explicit configuration. > >> > >>> Currently we have best Internet to migrate to new protocol. Why? > >> > >> The primary motivation -- as I understand it -- is the lack of unique IP > >> addresses. > >> > >>> Because how internet become centralized. Eyeball networks just want to > reach > >>> content. E2E communication is not that much needed. We have games and > >>> enhusiast, but those can pay extra for public IPv4. Or get VPN/VPS. > >> > >> Now you are talking about two classes of Internet connectivity: > >> > >> 1) First class participation where an endpoint /is/ /on/ the Internet > with a > >> globally routed IP. > >> 2) Second class participation where an endpoint /has/ /access/ /to/ the > >> Internet via a non-globally routed IP. > >> > >> There may be some merit to multiple classes of Internet connectivity. > But I > >> think it should be dealt with openly and above board as such. > >> > >>> And end comment. I do NOT want to start some kind of flame war here. > Yeah I > >>> know, Im biased toward IPv4. > >> > >> I don't view honest and good spirited discussion of facts and > understanding to > >> be a flame war. In fact, I view such discussions as a good thing. > >> > >>> If something new popups, I want it better than previous thingie (a > lot) and > >>> easier or at least same level of complications, but IPv6 just solves > one thing > >>> and brings a lot of complexity. > >> Please elaborate on the complexity that IPv6 brings that IPv4 didn't > also bring > >> with it in the '90s? > >> > >> Would the things that you are referring to as IPv6 complexities have > been any > >> different if we had started with IPv6 instead of IPv4 in the '80s & > '90s? > >> > >> In some ways it seems to me that you are alluding to the legacy code / > equipment > >> / understanding / configuration / what have you. This is something > that many > >> have been dealing with for quite a while. The mainframe's ability to > run code > >> from near half a century ago comes to mind. > >> > >>> The fact is, IPv6 failed. > >> > >> I concede that IPv6 has faltered. But I don't believe it's failed. I > don't > >> think it's fair to claim that it has. > >> > >>> There are probably multiple reasons for it. Do we ever move to IPv6? > I dont > >>> know.. Do I care for now? Nope, IPv4 works for me for now. > >> > >> You are entitled to your own opinion as much as I'm entitled to mine. > But the > >> key thing to keep in mind is that it's /your/ opinion. The operative > word being > >> "your" as in "you". Your views / opinions / experiences are /yours/. > What's > >> more important is that other people's views / opinions / experiences > may be > >> different. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Grant. . . . > >> unix || die > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org >