IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Wed Mar 30 23:29:24 UTC 2022

Sites looking at the traffic they get and saying, you know what all our customers connect to us
over IPv6 with some of them also connecting over IPv4.  I think we can stop supporting IPv4 now.

ISP’s saying this IPv4aaS isn’t getting much traffic anymore lets out source it for the few
customers that are still using it.  Lots of ISPs are well down the path leading to this point
by turning off IPv4 on the access networks.

Home / enterprise networks.  All my gear is IPv6 capable and supports IPv4aaS for the few legacy
IPv4 sites I need to connect to.  This is happening today.

In the end almost all the IPv4 traffic with be with the third party IPv4aaS providers and collectively
they will decide to turn off the lights. 

> On 30 Mar 2022, at 07:53, Jacques Latour <Jacques.Latour at cira.ca> wrote:
> 
> So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack IPv4/IPv6?
> When are we going to give up on IPv4?
> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
> 
> 😊
> 
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
> 
> Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets introduced.
> 
> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015.
> 
> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.
> 
> Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Justin:
> 
> 1)    "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ...     ":   After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Abe (2022-03-26 18:42)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
> While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information, the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP, among many other examples).  It's important to separate the ideas from the plumbing.
> 
> That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
> 
> Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into wider use.  It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly mutated into a production service.  Why should we continue to expend effort to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider use?
> 
> Is IPv6 a perfect protocol?  Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
> 
> Thank you
> jms
> 
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
> 
> 3)    Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6):    I believe that there is a philosophic / logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org