4 ms·
I feel like a lot of the issues raised in that article aren't as relevant anymore. The issue of IPv6 only clients communicating over IPv4 can be solved via tunn
by carlisle_ 14y ago
I feel like a lot of the issues raised in that article aren't as relevant anymore. The issue of IPv6 only clients communicating over IPv4 can be solved via tunneling in both directions. Reading over that article again, it really does seem like he's complaining about the transition not the protocol. The solution to what he's complaining about is being solved by a slow and gradual approach that's taken place for well over a decade. The details have been worked out as time has gone on.
The biggest issue will not be getting everybody onto IPv6. That will happen at some point, however distant. The bigger issue is that clients slow to transition to IPv6, for whatever reason, will experience IPv4 service degradation as more and more of the internet switches to an IPv6 only stack.
- geofft 14y agoYes, he's complaining about the transition, not the protocol. One perfectly acceptable transition method, from a technical viewpoint (though probably not a political one), is the one that got us on IPv4 in the first place: a declaration that the Internet's core routers will stop routing the old protocol come January 1. Another transition method would be to write a protocol that doesn't need such tactics to get people to switch to. If it's been "being solved" over the last ten years, neither you or I will see the end of IPv4 on the public Internet within our lifetimes. Or, if we do, it's because something bigger and better will come along, obsoleting every version of IP. The debate over whether to switch to IPv6 will sound as silly as a debate about Morse code in the 1960s. The future will come up with their protocols. IPv6, or maybe something other than IPv6, needs to be a protocol we can start using now (and not just because it's cool, but because it's useful) and not feel like it's wasted if it becomes irrelevant in 2025.