On 3/10/22 9:22 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Matthew Walster wrote:
IPv6 is technologically superior to IPv4, there's no doubt about that.
It is not. Though IPv6 was designed against OSI CLNP (with 20B, or, optionally, 40B addresses), IPv6 incorporated many abandoned ideas of CLNP and XNS already known to be useless or harmful with experiences on IPv4 to be a protocol as bad as or even worse than CLNP.
For example, address length was extended from original 8B to 16B to allow lower 48bits be MAC addresses, which was what XNS was doing, only to make ISP operations with raw addresses prohibitively painful.
IPv6 as originally designed had 8 byte (64-bit) addresses that had no difficulty including 48-bit MAC addresses for link-local deployment. It was explicitly stated that they would *NEVER* be globally visible, as there were many documented examples of duplicate MAC assignments. Then, the powers that be declared that IPv6 should have 128-bit addresses, and a host of committees were setup with competing CLNP (TUBA) co-chairs. They incorporated many ideas of CLNP and XNS that were thought (by many of us) to be worthless, useless, and harmful. Committee-itis at its worst. My original address plan had the leading 32 bits as the existing ASN, with the lower 32-bits as the existing IPv4 address. Making ISP operations eminently easier, as we already knew those two things.