back
1 comments
Aye. djb is pretty opinionated, but in this case he is spot on.
I disagree.

His main objection seems to be thatfor IPv6 to work, administrators would (shock) have to administer IPv6. As he says: They would 1. have to acquire IPv6 address-space and 2. they will have to add it to their DNS.

That's it. Once that is done, 99% of things out there just work. If you run Windows and Active Directory, all you have to do is acquire address space, as AD does DNS for you automagically.

If we can't expect administrators to put in this minimum of effort to make the internet work in the future, but instead expect them to be able to set up huge layered NAT infrastructures with all the extra effort and problems that leads to, something is horribly, horribly wrong.

Really. IPv6 opponents seems to live under the illusion that IPv6 will create more work, which in itself is true, but they ignore the extra work required to make IPv4 work at all. Work at all today that is. It's not going to get better in the future.

I believe his objection is that, being realistic about these things, administrators won't bother to seperately administer IPv6, when it doesn't confer any advantage to the first movers.

It's not about what should happen, it's about what will, taking into account the reality of human behaviour. And even if 95% of sites out there did enable IPv6, then everyone will still want IPv4 addresses so that they can still reach that last 1-in-20 - the transition simply can't happen until all existing sites are reachable over v6.

I don't think he's an "IPv6 opponent", I think he just makes a good case that there isn't a workable transition plan.