It just shows how badly even intelligent people may misunderstood the simple problem
Posted Jan 26, 2011 10:58 UTC (Wed) by khim
In reply to: What about IPv6 right here on earth?
Parent article: LCA: Vint Cerf on re-engineering the Internet
I think DJB is arguing that there should have been a transition period where people moved to IPv6, but still continued to use 32-bit addresses.
What will it change?
This could have been handled by setting aside a special part of the IPv6 address space for addresses that mapped directly on to IPv4 equivalents.
This is done already.
Then, over time, operating system vendors, Linux distributions, and network equipment manufacturers could have moved to IPv6 "painlessly."
Operation system vendors? Yes. Linux distribution? Of course. Network equipment manufacturers? No way in hell. You see, IPv4 requires 4 bytes in the routing table, IPv6 requires 16. If the given piece of silicon is used to do lots of things and handle IP traffic as well you can easily add IPv6 support. But if the equipment's primary reason for existence is TCP/IP then switch from IPv4 to IPv6 (without magic function) is expensive. This is why we have situation where hardware all around supports IPv6 with one exception: ISPs don't support it and most have no plans to support it. Intermediate step with 32bit addresses will just increase the mess. Instead of clear IPv4 -> IPv6 step it'll introduce two steps: IPv6/32bit and IPv6. Industry will enthusiastically embrace first step (because of it's PR value) and will delay the second step as long as humanly possible.
The working group should not have made ignoring IPv6 an option. They should have pushed for it to become the only choice for newer systems.
The working group does not build the hardware, so I can not push anything this way.
to post comments)