DJB was wrong... even if he was right too.
Posted Jan 26, 2011 20:56 UTC (Wed) by khim
In reply to: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
Seems to me that DJB was right:
No, he was wrong.
IPv6's lack of interop with IPv4 is a huge barrier.
Sure, but his reasoning only offered solution for non-problem. His idea was that people "at the edge" are dead-set against reconfiguration, yet somehow ISPs are ready and willing to add IPv6 routing to their routers. In reality it's the opposite: IPv6 routing is more expensive and so we don't have global IPv6 network or IPv4/IPv6 - we only have global IPv4 network and bunch of small, sometimes not even connected, IPv6 networks. For his solution to overcome the real problem we'd need this magic function - and it just does not work.
I confess, I still don't understand the decision to break backwards compatibility; it would have been so simple to transition if you could use both on the same network.
It is possible to use both. What is not possible is to implement IPv6 as cheap as IPv4 - and that means ISPs are delaying IPv6 as much as possible. Compare performance of a typical pice of high-end hardware in IPv4 mode and IPv6 mode: "128K routes for IPv4" vs "64K routes for IPv6", "up to 60
Mpps of IPv4 packets" vs "up to 30
Mpps of IPv6 packets", etc. It's just cheaper to only implement IPv4 and ignore IPv6 - and without IPv6-capable routers the whole DJB's scheme just does not work.
to post comments)