On 9/13/21 2:52 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com <mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained. the transition plan was dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years. the 93 transition mechanisms were desperate add-ons when v4 did not go away. and dual stack does not scale, as it requires v4 space proportional to deployed v6 space.
What I find most peculiar about this whole rant (not just yours but the whole thread) is that I may be the only one who found implementing IPv6 with dual stack completely trivial and a non issue? There is no scale issue nor any of the other rubbish.
I agree on the host side. It didn't even occur to me at the time I was looking at it that it would be any sort of issue -- we had all kinds of other protocols on our boxes like SMB, Netware, DEC LAT, etc. We would have done it if customers told us they wanted it, just like we implemented ACL's not realizing why they were especially important. Back in the early days all routing was done in software so it wouldn't have been hard to squeeze v6 in. All of that changed when the forwarding plane got cast in silicon though which made it far, far more difficult to get anybody to stick their necks out vs a skunk works software project. But before that it would have been completely doable if somebody was willing to throw money at it. Mike