3 ms·
This is a fake argument. Noone is arguing for backwards compatibility. But there was also no necessity to demand reshaping networks and changing address assign
by izacus 6mo ago
This is a fake argument. Noone is arguing for backwards compatibility.
But there was also no necessity to demand reshaping networks and changing address assignment in a way that made migration extremely work intensive and hard to deploy in parallel.
- tardedmeme 6mo agoHow would you do it?
- izacus 6mo agoI wouldn't try to reinvent DHCP, kept NAT and generally attempted to keep the overall shape of a v6 network the same as v4 networks to ease transition of large deployments. Ipv6 now has most of that - after years of resistance - which results in a mixed mess of "several ways to do it" approaches spiced with clients and equipment supporting a random set of them.