V6 still not supported
jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Thu Mar 24 22:53:56 UTC 2022
Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>>> Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail
>>>> here. Android phones are,
>>>> indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the biggest part.
>>>> If this were a purely technical problem, we’d have been done more
>>>> than a decade ago. The
>>>> problem is a lack of corporate “round tuits” which for each
>>>> enterprise are in limited supply and
>>>> usually go to things that either reduce costs or increase revenue.
>>> So long as they have public facing v6 servers is there really a
>>> problem? Sure you're not going to get to 100% deployment, but
>>> nothing is going to do that in any of our lifetimes. The object
>>> should be to not have to deploy tortured hacks like CGNAT. That is
>>> what success is IMO, and we don't from a technical standpoint.
>> Yes… We need them to have v6 deployed to their clients so that
>> content providers can start turning off v4 where it’s costing them
>> money to support it.
> Well content providers could pretty easily force the issue if they
Content providers are rumored to dig into the single digit percentages
of failing connections to ensure their audiences is as large as possible.
And enterprises would likely happily settle on edge solutions for v6
only content so long as they are workable.
More information about the NANOG