On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host.
i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows: "it was never possible to design a smooth transition and that's why we gave up on it." furthermore, it's a also the following assertion: "it was never possible to expand our address space while allowing for an actual migration." if you believe that, then you end up in advocacy land. if you don't believe that but you see lots of people who gave up on the design process early, then you understand why we're here. v6 was designed without a migration plan and it wasn't believed to be important, or possibly wasn't believed to be possible. but there was never any pressure to use v6 because v4 worked well and we had plenty of addresses. we still have plenty of addresses and although they're no longer ~free from quasi-governmental organizations they're way cheaper than the cost to implement v6. so we're still going to use v4 ~forever.
So, please, Todd, explicate exactly how you would achieve that stated objective… What could you do differently on the IPv6-only host side that would allow smooth seamless connectivity to/from the IPv4 host while still providing a larger address space?
it sounds like you're interested in having the engineering conversation that should have been had ~15 years ago. me, too 15 years ago. sigh. i know owen is now just trolling because he's threatened by the idea that there might be something wrong with ipv6, but the reality is that none of this was necessary. ipv6 might have been done differently with a different header format and different choices around migration. routing could have been done differently to try to preserve end-to-end but still splitting locators and identifiers (which i know that dave meyer thinks might not be possible but i'm still more sanguine about). we could have explicitly made smooth migration an engineering requirement just as much as "more addresses" were. we didn't. that's fine. so we got a disconnected network that some things can talk to and others can't. and we put the full burden all the way to every edge. and now we have conversations about how to upgrade home cpe everywhere. it's tedious and boring and dumb but it's the direct result of every decision we made and how we prioritized things. so, for clarity, this "how do you magically enable smooth migration now that we didn't prioritize it in the protocol design" question is a bogus red herring. the answer is: "you prioritize it in the protocol design". i assume smart people can see that. owen: i understand you like v6 and that it's important to you. that doesn't mean it's perfect and it doesn't mean we couldn't have done better. stop being so hostile and so threatened and try to listen a bit. or don't. whatever works for you. cheers! t
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.
If it’s so simple, why do you continue to refuse to explain the process?
Owen