V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Wed Mar 23 19:05:47 UTC 2022

On 3/23/22 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> SIP won't displace all legacy PSTN any time soon. So it's a failure 
>> by your definition. And by your definition IPv6 was a failure before 
>> it was even born because the internet became popular -- something 
>> I'll add that nobody knew for certain when it was being designed. 
>> There's a lot of sour grapes about stuff that happened 30 years ago.
>> Mike
> The definition of failure flows from the definition of the objective, 
> the goal, the desired outcome.
> What is your understanding of those for IPv6?
> My understanding of the goal of IPv6 was to replace IPv4 globally 
> before address shortage caused real problems. If we agree on that, we 
> must also agree that it has failed to do so, ergo, IPv6 as a global 
> solution to IPv4 address shortage has been and thus far continues to 
> be a failure. Now it will almost certainly eventually succeed, but 
> that doesnt change that for all this time, it failed and there were 
> real consequences that or may not carry on with us all for quite some 
> time, and that there were real costs involved to real people.

IETF can't force people to adopt things, film at 11. They certainly 
can't control people's saltiness from something that happened 30 years 
ago. IPv6 is manifestly deployable for operators that want to. If others 
don't want to deploy it in the face of the predictable address crunch, 
that's on the operators and not anybody else. Vendors will build patches 
and hacks and other abominations if somebody is willing to pay for it. 
If you like CGN, by all means deploy it from a vendor standpoint. If you 
don't like CGN either then, well, you're sort of screwed. Going back and 
relitigating ipng is not ever going to happen.


More information about the NANOG mailing list