V6 still not supported

Wed Mar 16 17:01:28 UTC 2022

> On Mar 16, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> What struck me is how NONE of those challenges in doing IPv6 deployment
>> in the field had anything to do with fending off attempts to make IPv4
>> better.
>> 
>> Let me say that again.  Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take
>> over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time
>> improving IPv4 standards instead".
> 
> 
> I’ll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data available. True, none
> of the reasons directly claim “IPv6 isn’t good enough because we did X for v4
> instead”, yet all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient resources to
> make this the top priority.” which means that any resources being dedicated to
> improving (or more accurately further band-aiding) IPv4 are effectively being
> taken away from solving the problems that exist with IPv6 pretty much by
> definition.
> 
> So I will stand by my statement that if we put half of the effort that has been
> spent discussing these 16 relatively useless /8s that would not significantly
> improve the lifespan of IPv4 on resolving the barriers to deployment of IPv6,
> we would actually have a lot less need for IPv4 and a lot more deployment of
> IPv6 already.
> 
> Owen
> 
Regarding
> all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient resources to

> make this the top priority.”

This is not a technical issue. It is a management issue where long term global goals are sacrificed for short term local goals e.g., “How do I make my numbers this month so my bonus happens?” The insufficiency is management incentives driving management behavior.

	James

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220316/e5672249/attachment.html>