[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for HOSTING

Remi Despres wrote:

>>As a person who changed IPv6 address structure from 10+6 to 8+8,
>>trying to make IPv6 a little better than the worst, I know very
>>well how IPv6 fails to work.

> Not being such a person, I would be interested in learning in what
> "IPv6 fails", as you say.
> (Just stating that IPv6 doesn't help to solve problems!)
> Can you, please, provide a list of failures you identify for native
> IPv6 where it is available in addition to IPv4 (leaving out
> Teredo, 6to4 and ISATAP, which are not IPv6 per se).

Though there are so many failures of IPv6, an example suitable for
discussion here is a failure to aggregate routes.

> References to written material would be appreciated.

IPv6 address allocation policies are the written material.

Never say there are ongoing effort to solve the problem, as I know
similar efforts have failed several times, already.

Another example is a problem of transport payload size. Please
simply answer the following question:

	With 1280B of path MTU, how many bytes, do you think, are
	assured to be carried over UDP over IPv6 without
	fragmentation?

Note that IPv6 optional headers can be indefinitely long. Note also
that DNS (plain ones without DNSSEC) requires 512B must be carried
over UDP.

> o peer-to-peer applications would work better where IPv4 is
> available only through cascades of NATs.

I'm afraid you mean "better than" and peer-to-peer applications have
difficulties to run over NAT, especially cascaded NAT, which is not
the case with end to end NAT.

						Masataka Ohta