On 02/10/2017 21:42, Randy Bush wrote:
...
> yes, it has been compelling cgns and nat44444 all the hell over the
> place. major win!
In a way I regret not having completely blocked deployment of the http
nonsense back in 1993, when I ran the team that ran the network that
Tim Berners-Lee first polluted with this web stuff. But since I
didn't do that, just as Tim's managers didn't stop him wasting time
on it instead of doing his day job, the massive growth of the IPv4
network (before IPv6 was ready) became inevitable, so NAT44 and
NAT444 became inevitable, so CGNs and NAT64 became inevitable, so
here we are.
> i wonder what we could do about that. maybe feature parity, such as
> dhcp options, classless, ... the list goes on,
Well, we have BCP198 which says clearly enough that the "length of an
IPv6 prefix may be any number from zero to 128" so (despite being
an author of draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6) I think we have that
one basically right. I'm aware of one DHCPv6 option that is really
lacking (default router) and despite the polemics it baffles me that
we haven't fixed that one.
Apart from that, what else is on the list? That's a serious question,
and a draft that identifies all such items would be a very useful
thing to have. We should focus on sunrise6 rather than sunset4.
Brian