Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Sun Mar 27 04:26:00 UTC 2022

Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:35:30 -0400
> "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
>> touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (*/disabling/*
>> the program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4
>> netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN! As to universal
> Have you ever considered that this may be in fact:
> */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the
> way you expect
> Paul

While we cant really know, the odds are strong that there are only a few 
lines in any particular product that need to be removed or reworked. Its 
a safe expectation that its a trivial change, as far as changes go.

The bigger hurdle is deployment. All 240/4 discussions have usually 
opined that:

There is every expectation that if 240/4 reserved distinction is removed 
that any particular product still being updated would likely have such a 
change incorporated as part of its normal update process.

And that all non supported products that would not get such a change 
would over time fade away to become a very distinct minority, as they do 

There is strong evidence that this is an accurate prediction, as even 
without the removal of reserved status, mere public discussion and 
debate over the matter has been sufficient that today a large amount of 
that change has actually occurred, organically so to speak.

If IPv6 would have had such a migration strategy it would have been over 


More information about the NANOG mailing list