[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

Paul Vixie paul at vix.com
Sun Sep 2 00:37:12 EDT 2007

> - It never delivered initial promises, such as aggregation (the "8K
> DFZ"). In their great wisdom, the IETF pushed the protocol out with the
> promise that they will deliver the missing features (such as multihoming
> and effortless renumbering) later.


> Problem, nobody figured it out.

disagreed.  see A6, DNAME, bitstring labels, and 8+8.  i've learned a lot
about the ietf intelligensia over the years, starting with those losses.
we would actually be in a comparatively good position if only our tools
could be made by the lowest bidders.  what you said (not quoted here) about
purity, could be said louder.

> - As it turned out down the road, the multiple-addresses-per-host are
> too much of an administrative overhead.

the thing i keep asking is, where was the per-address default route for
inbound, and where was the LCR hook for outbound?  without those, simply
adding multiple subnets to a LAN and hoping hosts would figure it out
was just vaporware.  (note well: A6/DNAME/bitstrings didn't have solutions
to those problems, either.)

> So we're in a situation where the only remaining real reason to upgrade
> to IPv6 is IPv4 address space exhaustion, while IPv6 still does not have
> hugely popular features such as NAT and no equivalent either.
> Technically, I consider NAT more flawed than IPv6. Nevertheless, NAT has
> addressed market needs, while IPv6 is a solution without a market.

with respect to the oft-quoted axiom that if pigs had wings they could fly,
i remember telling a lot of people (who reported to me inside an ISP) in Y2K
or so is that "the rocket boosters have been attached to the pig called IPv6".
what i meant by this is anybody's guess, really, but i think i was trying to
say that even though it was useless and solved the wrong problem, it was also
inevitable.  nothing's changed: ipv6 fails to solve the problems ipv4 had,
and makes the problems ipv4 had even worse, but nevertheless it's what we'll
have to use while awaiting real innovation, to come, presumably or hopefully,
some time later.

note: i'm not speaking as an arin trustee here.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list