Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome. Happens to the best of us. One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the Net. Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet) --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
john,
fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance
That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make a decision”
my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that the industry press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the internet due to ipv4 exhaustion. i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press.
i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING, it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think. the ietf did not. and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to clean up the mess.
randy
Hi: IPv4 is 40 years old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old timers. Since then, networks have evolved dramatically, with new physical media like wireless that hates broadcasts, and new logical constructs like overlays in cloud and SD WAN which require new IP abstractions and more control. Question is whether we keep complaining for the next 25 years that choices made 25 years ago were inadequate, or work on evolving stuff to meet needs. There are groups at the IETF that standardized IPv6 evolutions for those networks. We now have means to decouple the IP abstractions of Link and Subnet from the underlaying L2/L1 constructs and provide a deterministic state about the end points to the network. The equivalent for IPv4 did not really happen. The rest of the world will follow the evolution because there's not enough IPv4 for Africa or Asia anyway. I see the analogy with the industrial revolution, England stuck to coal and steam when the world that had nothing moved on. Which side are you on? Pascal
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 16:02 To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: V6 still not supported
Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome. Happens to the best of us.
One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the Net.
Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet)
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
john,
fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance
That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make a decision”
my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that the industry press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the internet due to ipv4 exhaustion. i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press.
i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING, it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think. the ietf did not. and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to clean up the mess.
randy
Complaining is fun and healthy. But I was unclear, not asking about v4 vs. v6, but about caring for / contributing to evolution of network protocols, or not. Some evolution has happened in the IPv6 world, more could happen, so it gets better. Or throw the baby? Keep safe; Pascal
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sent: mardi 22 mars 2022 16:38 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
Which side are you on?
hint: this is an operators' list. we are forced to be on all 'sides'. this pain gives us the privilege of whining a lot.
randy
But I was unclear, not asking about v4 vs. v6, but about caring for / contributing to evolution of network protocols, or not.
Some evolution has happened in the IPv6 world, more could happen, so it gets better. Or throw the baby?
maybe you're talking to the wrong guy. i gave a lot of blood getting dren like tla, nla, ... removed. and in the final week was told by the ietf v6 wg chair that operators did not know what a logarithm was. iij deployed v6 on our backbone in 1997. oh, and i have the tee shirt and the coffee cup. and ipv6 is still a massive pain, and our bean counters, $diety bless 'em, did not like what ipv6 deployment cost us. we are all road kill (a bad pun iff you were there) randy
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:
Hi:
IPv4 is 40 years old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old timers.
25 years to not achieve global domination opens the door to become obsoleted before it does. Pretty sure that would be more bad than good.
The rest of the world will follow the evolution because there's not enough IPv4 for Africa or Asia anyway. I see the analogy with the industrial revolution, England stuck to coal and steam when the world that had nothing moved on.
Some weight to lend to your theory would be if Africa and Asia IPv6 numbers are outpacing everywhere else. Google numbers suggest that is not at all the case, with the notable exception of Saudia Arabia and India and even Gabon. Perhaps you have better or different numbers. We could use some good news.
Which side are you on?
Pascal
The "side" thing is the problem here. The objective is a stable and maximally usable internet, both now and in the future. Joe
On March 22, 2022 at 11:53 jmaimon@jmaimon.com (Joe Maimon) wrote:
25 years to not achieve global domination opens the door to become obsoleted before it does. Pretty sure that would be more bad than good.
Not uncommon, but the problem is: Obsoleted by what exactly? We're kind of in a similar situation as fossil fuel vs electric vehicles. We know we need to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles but electric cars, at least at this point, leave quite a bit to be desired like battery technology (materials needed, disposal, cost, electricity generation, etc.) The latter may not scale to the 1.4B vehicles needed globally. Thus far we have single digit percent* EVs and a tendency for those to be in the upper range of price ($60K-ish.) Like IPv6, but ok then what else? Maybe hydrogen fuel cell, maybe IPv8 or IPv4++...maybe, maybe congress will mandate all roads be downhill. They say necessity is the mother of invention but there are piles of dead bodies in history which never got past the necessity stage. Rocks, hard places, and all that. * If you check me don't confuse sales of new electrics vs per cent of vehicles in use. Though the trend seems encouraging we might hit a wall (e.g., scarce battery materials) or saturation (everyone who wants a $60K Tesla has one, it's a limited market.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
bzs@theworld.com wrote:
We know we need to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles but electric cars, at least at this point, leave quite a bit to be desired like battery technology (materials needed, disposal, cost, electricity generation, etc.)
Suppose syngas becomes economical. Who said we have to get rid of ICE vehicles? The essential problem is portable convertible efficient economical stable high density energy. Joe
participants (5)
-
bzs＠theworld.com -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Joe Maimon -
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) -
Randy Bush