V6 still not supported

Saku Ytti saku at ytti.fi
Sat Mar 19 06:59:31 UTC 2022

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 03:32, <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:

> I'll mention, as I often do at this point in this conversation over
> the past few decades, that nothing stops you from designing and
> implementing such a network and, for demonstration / proof of concept
> purposes at least, floating it on top of IP.
> Build a better mouse trap...

I'm taking some liberties here. I suspect Joe implied it as an
undesirable outcome which may happen organically unless some
unspecified actions are taken. And Matt suggested some unspecified
IPv4.1 as a desirable outcome.
Anyone pushing on fixing IPv4 likely has complete confusion why IPv6
adoption is struggling. IPv6 is kind of terrible, but a lot of that
terribleness is now paid with heavy cost. The ship has sailed for
something meaningfully better. Trying to deliver some strategic fix
now throws all those investments to trash and there is little
guarantee whatever we'd deliver instead would be meaningfully better,
and high risk we'd just make it yet worse.
IPv6 is shit, but we can make it go, and we need the address space. We
don't need IPv4.

If I understood Joe right, I share that sentiment. I want single stack
IP, IPv6 is the only option, and I'm afraid it might not happen.

> On March 17, 2022 at 23:34 mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net (Matt Hoppes) wrote:
>  > At this point I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch
>  > applied to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death.
>  >
>  > >
>  > > 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