V6 still not supported

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Thu Mar 24 09:47:34 UTC 2022

Owen DeLong wrote:
> The goal of IPv6, IMHO, is to become the next lingua franca of the internet, eventually rendering IPv4 unnecessary except in small pockets of legacy support.
Hey Owen,

Indeed, having otherwise fallen short of the mark that is what remains.
> I agree that has not yet been achieved.

Its  encouraging that progress and momentum continues, but there is no 
way to be 100% confident that IPv6 has unlimited time to obtain dominance.
> It was an objective to try and reach that point prior to IPv4 address shortages caused real problems, but we pretty well missed that target when NAT started catching on.

There were still plenty of opportunities to save the day that IPv6 
global deployment missed.
> I would not say that IPv6 has ben and continues to be a failure so much as IPv6 has not yet achieved its goal. Yes, it failed the (optimistic) objective of achieving it’s goal prior to IPv4 shortages causing real problems, but that happened pretty quickly and pretty early in the lifespan of IPv6 thus far (I view the popularization of NAT as being the first marker of real problems in IPv4 due to address shortage).

There were more mile markers than NAT on the address shortage problem 
route and IPv6 failed most of those as well. Some of those happened 
early, some not so much and there are probably more to come.

While shortage might have been the main driver of development of NAT, 
provider independence and abstraction was the clear motivation for end 
users to adopt it.

>   Getting IPv6 to near ubiquitous deployment in that short time would have been an impressive accomplishment if it had happened.
> Owen

20 years ago it was not considered optimistic to expect that there would 
no longer be threads of this nature, it was essentially treated as 
heretical to imagine there might be. And there were concrete 
consequences to that mode of group think.

Even a naysayer as myself, back in 2004 really only expected another 
decade or so of transition to clear dominance.

I will note that a decade to make 240/4 usable was cited as a major 
opposition reason to it. And other ideas.


More information about the NANOG mailing list