nanog mailing list archives
Re: BOOTP & ARP history
From: James R Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 16:44:39 -0400
On Mar 19, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote: IPv6 in comparison was very familiar ground. To me it seemed that it was ipv4 with bigger addresses and that was about it. But I've never understood all of the strum und drang about ipv6.
As one tightly involved in multiprotocol networking in the '90s, I viewed with interest the evolution of IPv6. Nothing about IPv6 changed fundamental physical network design principals, except to remove IPv4 limits on the number of subnetworks. Oh, and the removal of coordinated RFC1918 addressing between members of the ever active merger and acquisition world. Life became much rosier. One could concievably deploy a plant floor with a million IPv6 globally unique device address without kludges required by IPv4. I never ran into Sturm und Drang about IPv6 itself, only about the required investment in people and hardware, which I considered a short term bump with a long term payoff. That, I discovered, was the true barrier to IPv6 planning and deployment — middle management, especial account managers. The basic argument was “The customer must first ask for it and sign a contract, then we will prepare for it.” Too much “not in my cost center” mentality crippled the ability of network implementers to even deploy IPv6 for demonstration purposes, as well as for learning. The idea that “my investment” might also benefit others, even in my own company was anathema. I have never become short sighted enough to endorse such idiocy. As one experience with ‘joys’ of end to end connections between NATted networks with overlapping RFC1918 space, The advent of CGNAT and various pipe dreams (mostly in the US) of extending IPv4 address space offends my business sense and technical sense for wasting time, materials, and money.
Current thread:
- RE: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 23)
- RE: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Message not available
- Re: V6 still not supported R: 202203232156.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history John Gilmore (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history James R Cutler (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Randy Bush (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matt Hoppes (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 19)