Hi Randy and Brian,
I am sure the discussion of the discussion has been had before, but:
IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically, there is no possible design for an IP with
bigger addresses that is transparently backwards compatible. We've
known that since at least 1992.
i guess you forget the discussion of variable length. i hope we don't have to
rehash it here.
decisions were made. some were quite bad. v6 had some real zingers.
remember tla/nla? no feature parity, such as dhcp (a war which has not
finished)? it is almost as if it was designed to fail.
I think that the compatibility issue is a key reason why adoption has been
No compelling IPv6 only features
-> From my reading several key features were directed at IPv6 only originally,
like IPsec. Successive works to provided all non-address IPv6 features in IPv4.
-> This in part is being addressed by helpful capabilities such as DHCPv6PD
(although we could kill things entirely by back porting this to IPv4 ;-)
No local use benefit
-> Ostensibly deploying IPv6 only gets you (slightly) more work.
-> compare this to transformative technologies such as Ethernet and IPv4, which
had a better price point and enabled new local capabilities, which did not rely
on neighbours adopting the same protocol.
Of course, these are short-sighted analysis.
Being able to uniquely address a peer device is a key benefit which we will see
drive adoption once 103.X/8 is gone.
Another key benefit is local addressability which handles organizational
merges/changes/private peering with ULAs (resolves the RFC-1918 collision
For a few years I have been involved in an extremely pragmatic market where
people want to see the money they will save by deploying a networking
technology. What would get my customers adopting would be a compelling TCO
Logicalis Australia Pty Ltd
t +61 3 8532 4042
m +61 401 772 770
Ietf mailing list