Why DJB's plan fail [LWN.net]

Why DJB's plan fail

Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:06 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
In reply to: Why DJB's plan fail by lutchann
Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net

Oh, sorry. The grand plan forged 20 years ago that produced nothing thus far is a great success. Just like Itanium. :-)

Nobody is calling anyone an idiot. It just a bad, bad plan that didn't really work.

How do I know this? I cannot ping ipv6.google.com and I am connected to the Internet right now. It's that simple.

But, forget DJB, me, dlang and the rest of the "unimportant" folk. Cerf and Huston are saying the exact same thing, just a touch more politically correct.

To quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion): "By early 2012, new devices and services are expected to appear on the Internet that are only reachable by IPv6. These will only be accessible from the IPv4 Internet if older hosts that cannot implement IPv6 utilize special translator gateway services."

So, the grand plan for a clean new protocol needs "emulators" to work. Simply hilarious!

I know that things will eventually sort themselves out. They always do. That does not mean we are not allowed to criticise a bad plan.

(Log in to post comments)

Well, yes...

Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:31 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Oh, sorry. The grand plan forged 20 years ago that produced nothing thus far is a great success. Just like Itanium. :-)

Sorry, but there is a difference: Itanium was great success for a time - before AMD started selling Opterons. When Opteron outsold Itanium is was easy to see and say that Itanium is failure - but not before.

Now, where is your alternative to IPv6 with more users then IPv6 (or at least with estimates which show that it'll overcome number of IPv6 deployments any time soon). Till such alternative materializes DJBs plan is just a useless rant.

Nobody is calling anyone an idiot. It just a bad, bad plan that didn't really work.

Why do you say it didn't work? Where is your alternative which pushes IPv6 away?

So, the grand plan for a clean new protocol needs "emulators" to work. Simply hilarious!

It's sad, not hilarious, but it's no different from AMD64, for example: without syscall 32bit emulation layer your old programs no longer work. And your 32bit drivers no longer work period.

Well, yes...

Posted Jan 28, 2011 0:42 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> Itanium was great success for a time

Hey, when did we switch to stand up comedy? I wasn't warned! Good one - love it. ;-)

> Why do you say it didn't work?

Remember that ping6 I did to ipv6.google.com? It says network unreachable. I'm pretty sure I'm connected. Not sure what's going on there... :-)

> Where is your alternative which pushes IPv6 away?

I don't want to push it away. I'd like to use it. But I can't.

> without syscall 32bit emulation layer your old programs no longer work. And your 32bit drivers no longer work period.

Yes they do. On my 32-bit OS running on amd64.

Oh, and on 64-bit, I didn't even know I had 32bit emulation layer (OK, I did, but I didn't have to know) and they still worked. Good folk at Red Hat and Microsoft did all that for me. So sad they couldn't reuse my IPv4 address to use on IPv6.