IPv6 woes - RFC

Sun Sep 5 06:07:07 UTC 2021

On 9/4/21 11:43 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Municipal fiber.

;-)

> Which is the point, you cannot capitalise offering IPv6, so offering 
> it is bad for business. People who have adopted IPv6 have eaten into 
> their margins for no utility.

I don't understand.  :-/

> I view IPv6 as the biggest mistake of my career and feel responsible 
> for this horrible outcome and I do apologise to Internet users for 
> it.

*blink* ... *blink*

First, thank you.  I say that sincerely from and end user point of view 
feeling like I'm between a rock and a hard place, one of which is 
closing in.

Second, I can't say that similar thoughts haven't crossed my mind.

> This dual-stack is the worst possible outcome, and we've been here 
> over two decades, increasing cost and reducing service quality. We 
> should have performed better, we should have been IPv6 only years ago.

I remember LAN networking back in the '90s where multiple / mixed 
protocols was a Bad Thing™.  I view IPv4 and IPv6 as tantamount to the 
same (or at least very similar) thing.  What's worse is that IPv4 and 
IPv6 have extremely similar sounding names.  Though I think in some ways 
that IPv4 and IPv6 are effectively as technically different from each 
other as IP(v4) and IPX.  Though at least they had the decency to have 
more different names.

> I wish 20 years ago big SPs would have signed a contract to drop IPv4 
> at the edge 20 years from now, so that we'd given everyone a 20 year 
> deadline to migrate away.

Hindsight is 20/20 for a while.  Then ... bit rot.

> 20 years ago was the best time to do it, the 2nd best time is today. 
> If we don't do it, 20 years from now, we are in the same position, 
> inflating costs and reducing quality and transferring those costs to 
> our end users who have to suffer from our incompetence.

Sadly, I think that we are back to the multi-protocol days of old.  And 
I believe that we are going to be stuck here for much of my career.  :-(

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210905/91d376c1/attachment.bin>