“It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space. Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve non-existant (or already fixed) problems.”
your argument against IPv6 is that they should have created a new version of IPv4, but bigger? So… IPv6? On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 06:32 <b...@uu3.net> wrote: > It seems team developing IPv6 had ONE way of doing things, > with is actually recipe for disaster. Why? Because they were building an IP > protocol. Something that will be using globally by ALL networks around. > Not some local IOT (useless) shit used here and there. > Thats why such IP protocol should be follow KISS concept and flexibility. > Some people have different vision how to run network. And because > Inter-net is an AS to AS network they should have right to do so. > > In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because > crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly. > > Its same about other weird things embedded into IPv6 that probably > should go layer up. And now people wonder why IPv6 adoption is crap and > there is high resistance. IPv4 made mistakes too, but hell, it was the > first. > > It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space. > Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve > non-existant (or already fixed) problems. > > Just my 2 cents... > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simp...@gmail.com> > To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 22:24:14 -0400 > > I'd wanted to clearly distinguish this from the old methods: > > This is intended to replace ARP, ICMP Router Advertisement, ICMP > Redirect, ICMP Information, ICMP Mask, and OSPF Hello in the [IPv6] > environment. There are also elements of the OSI ES-IS and IS-IS Hello. > > We were forward looking to deployments of thousands of systems per link, > rather > than the 30 maximum under then current ethernet standards. We needed fewer > announcements, less chatty traffic, and more specific traffic designation. > > We also prioritized network security. Moreover requiring addresses be > ephemeral, > such that applications would not be able to tie > authentication/authorization to > an > IPv6 address and would be motivated to use cryptographic security. > > Unfortunately, later committees decided that rather than a single simpler > secured > address assignment scheme, we needed unsecured SLAAC and duplicate DHCPv6. > Three ways to do the same thing are always a recipe for disaster. > > Reminder: I was an operator and one of the original NANOG members. > > We spent a lot of time considering human factors. I'd pioneered the > "Operational Considerations" section of the original draft RFCs. > > IPv6 is a case study of what happens with committee-itis. > > The small design team worked well. >