V6 still not supported

Wed Mar 16 18:36:54 UTC 2022

My answer is to work on resolving the barriers to v6 instead of wasting time on this, yes.

Owen

> On Mar 16, 2022, at 11:12 , David Bass <davidbass570 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> So your answer is do nothing because we should be spending the time on v6?
> 
> There are a lot of barriers to v6, and there is no logical reason why this range of v4 subnets wasn’t made available to the world a decade (or two) ago.  The next best time to do it is now though.  
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:21 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220316/7fad683d/attachment.html>