Mark Delany wrote:
On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote:
straightforward transition plan in-hand working transition strategy nor a straightforward transition Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might yet be formulated some 20+ years after deploying any of ipv6, ipv4++ or ipv6-lite is absurd.
You are correct that there is no way to represent 128 bits inside of a 32 bit field without modifications. Especially past the point of early adoption when there was still a 1:1 ratio of IPv4 and IPv6 actual addressing possible. However, even transition mechanism that would have relied upon IPv4 modifications would have had a better chance of being rolled out as part of normal update cycle at this point than mass deployment of IPv6 which requires a bit more than normal update cycle.
The logic goes: we support legacy "do nothing" ipv4 deployments forever. We also expect those same deployments to invest significant effort, cost and risk to move off their perfectly functioning network for no self-serving benefit.
No surprise that hasnt happened very quickly. You have that backwards. Legacy ipv4 do-nothing deployments have absolutely no need of support. IPv6 needs their support so that non-legacy deployments of IPv4 wont need continued support.
There be unicorns and denial of human nature.
Mark.
Human nature is that deployment of a technology when the larger benefit is unrealized in the short term by the party expected to expend the costs of the deployment is unlikely to have significant widespread initial momentum and is quite likely to have lingering inability to complete a global deployment. As that is the case, efforts on both protocols are warranted. Joe