4 ms·

> I don't see a problem with giving everyone a v4 and a v6 in the meantime while the servers are upgraded The problem is the total absence of short term benefi

> I don't see a problem with giving everyone a v4 and a v6 in the meantime while the servers are upgraded The problem is the total absence of short term benefit, while the cost is not null (in money, time, or cognitive load). So, even if it's better for everyone to go IPv6, it's worse for each individual to move first. So everyone wants to move last.

peterwwillis 16y ago
The short term benefit in my proposal is being completely backwards-compatible and avoiding the problems of tunneling and other proposed workarounds while providing IPv6 routing where necessary. It doesn't "fix" the problem of running out of IPv4 address space (unless a given ISP decides to switch to IPv6-only, require its customers to upgrade, and turn on a multihomed IPv4 address for extreme cases). What it does do is allow the transition to take place. Everyone should be shouting at the top of our lungs at ISPs to support this so we can get this chicken/egg scenario over with. People are basically in denial. The cost is never going to be null and everyone has to move eventually. Server admins actually have the bulk of the responsibility here for getting the whole internet migrated to IPv6. It's their services we want to use and network addresses are just a way of getting to them. The problem is they have seemingly no accountability. I tried to hold the admin of xkcd.com's feet to the fire and I got rebuffed. Unless there's a substantive potential for their customers to abandon them they don't really give a crap (hopefully because they have other things to take care of). And in the meantime they can claim they don't need to move because the rest of the network isn't ready for them yet. So tell ISPs to multihome already and we can then start telling server admins to get their shit together because the rest of the network is ready for them.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > […] while providing IPv6 routing where necessary. This is the key point. Right now, and on the short term, IPv6 is not necessary at all. Or at least it isn't perceived to be. Reason: everyone is still compatible with IPv4. I know it's as stupid as racing towards a concrete wall, telling yourself that you can always slam the breaks later, but we seem to race towards that wall anyway. > People are basically in denial. […] they have seemingly no accountability […] I completely agree. But I can't think of a way to solve this.
  - peterwwillis 16y ago
    > I completely agree. But I can't think of a way to solve this. Charge people more to use IPv4-only networks and make it slower. Oh, wait......

peterwwillis 16y ago

The short term benefit in my proposal is being completely backwards-compatible and avoiding the problems of tunneling and other proposed workarounds while providing IPv6 routing where necessary. It doesn't "fix" the problem of running out of IPv4 address space (unless a given ISP decides to switch to IPv6-only, require its customers to upgrade, and turn on a multihomed IPv4 address for extreme cases). What it does do is allow the transition to take place. Everyone should be shouting at the top of our lungs at ISPs to support this so we can get this chicken/egg scenario over with. People are basically in denial. The cost is never going to be null and everyone has to move eventually. Server admins actually have the bulk of the responsibility here for getting the whole internet migrated to IPv6. It's their services we want to use and network addresses are just a way of getting to them. The problem is they have seemingly no accountability. I tried to hold the admin of xkcd.com's feet to the fire and I got rebuffed. Unless there's a substantive potential for their customers to abandon them they don't really give a crap (hopefully because they have other things to take care of). And in the meantime they can claim they don't need to move because the rest of the network isn't ready for them yet. So tell ISPs to multihome already and we can then start telling server admins to get their shit together because the rest of the network is ready for them.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
> […] while providing IPv6 routing where necessary. This is the key point. Right now, and on the short term, IPv6 is not necessary at all. Or at least it isn't perceived to be. Reason: everyone is still compatible with IPv4. I know it's as stupid as racing towards a concrete wall, telling yourself that you can always slam the breaks later, but we seem to race towards that wall anyway. > People are basically in denial. […] they have seemingly no accountability […] I completely agree. But I can't think of a way to solve this.
- peterwwillis 16y ago
  > I completely agree. But I can't think of a way to solve this. Charge people more to use IPv4-only networks and make it slower. Oh, wait......