V6 still not supported

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Fri Mar 11 00:43:18 UTC 2022


bzs at theworld.com wrote:
> I could offer a more philosophical assessment of IPv6 deployment.
>
> Perhaps we're there, we're doing fine. This is how it is going to go.
>
> It's out there, it works (glitches aside), those who want it use it
> tho they can't force others to use it so still need to maintain a
> dual-stack if that's of importance to them. Perhaps that's a
> reasonable complaint, the cost and effort of accommodating those who
> haven't deployed IPv6.

If this rather healthy viewpoint was more generally pervasive IPv4 
efforts would not be met with such hysteria.

> Maybe it will take 50 years (we're easily half-way there.)
>
> Put another way, by what objective measure is IPv6 deployment seen as
> failing? Other than individuals' impatience. Was there a generally
> agreed upon timeline which wasn't lived up to, for example?
As a protocol and product, IPv6 is a success. It works, its deployed, 
its utilized.

As the cure and solution to address scarcity experienced by network 
users and operators, it has already failed in that goal, repetitively 
and continually.

It was supposed to do that using the additional time CIDR bequeathed to 
IPv4. Fail.

It was supposed to do that upon IANA exhaustion. Fail.

It was supposed to do that upon RiR exhaustion. Annual Fail.

It was supposed to do that prior to commercialization and 
commoditization of IPv4. Fail.

It was supposed to do that before E2E on the internet became a quaint 
historical footnote. Fail.

IPv6 has failed the Internet.

Maybe, hopefully, this is the year or decade it finally stops being the 
perennial failure, but the history of fail induced net-negatives does 
not get erased by eventual success, and worse, the future will likely 
continue to contain artifacts of those failures.

Its not impossible to envision that IPv4 does not ever go away but 
actually gets extended in such a way that it obsoletes IPv6. The longer 
this drags out the less implausible it seems.

Joe




More information about the NANOG mailing list