[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Dear Jens,

you're right. I also think that TCP-IP is unable to cope with today's
Internet traffic and we should use a modern protocol like X.25: the
problem with IPv6 is not the v6 part, it's the IP.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 03/10/2019 11:34, Jens Link wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
>
> Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
> with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
> artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
> for IPv4 is created and implemented!
>
> Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
> implemented:
>
> - Use of NAT
> - Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
> - Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
> - Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
> - Use of Class-E address space (future use)
> - Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
>   address.
>
> Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
> is using 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation anyway.
>
> It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
> although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
> them on the open market.
>
> It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
> but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
> table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.
>
> The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
>
> - IT MUST have NAT
> - It MUST have Classes
> - IT MUST have DHCP
> - It MUST have ARP
> - It should be possible to drop ICMP the same impact as in IPv4. Many
>   experts I talked to over the years told me that blocking ICMP has
>   no negative impacts.
> - It MUST only have numbers and dots "."
> - There should be absolutly no reasons to use "[ ]" in URLs
>
> Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
> address.
>
> One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
> documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
> IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
> good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
> People don't want to learn!
>
> IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!
>
> Jens
>
> [1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
>     people actually using IPv6 with little success
>
> [2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions
>
> [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a
>
> [4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
>     that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
>     address is complete and utter nonsense
>
> [5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
>     that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191003/b142d8f0/attachment.html>