V6 still not supported

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Thu Mar 24 22:49:47 UTC 2022

Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
>> In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
>> Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.
> I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can survive on an hour of air for 20 years.
> 240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for IPv4.

I think it should be reclassified from never going to be used into some 
part of the internet might actually do something with it. Its important 
that happens now, better late then never. Whether its GUA or not or a 
mix of whatever, whether it buys months or years will depend greatly on 
how its actually used if it is ever used.

You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be 
wrong. IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions, 
but the same ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort 
asked from the unwilling is to support cutting the red tape frustrating 
the willing. A hearty round of knock yourself out from the right folk in 
the right place and time and we dont have to debate this particular 
point ever again.

How are we to ever find out who is right if that never happens? That 
alone is enough reason for me.

>> Personally, that means that although I have long disliked proposals that keep moving to the left of the 128bit space, were I to believe it likely to increase deployment and momentum I would champion it in my own limited fashion much as I do 240/4.
> Not sure what you mean by “moving to the left of the 128 bit space”.

That Ipv6 address allocation schemes and proposals tended to enlarge 
over time, using up more bits heading from right to left.

> We will obviously agree to disagree about 240/4 as we long have.
> Owen

To the next time then.


More information about the NANOG mailing list