Jacques.Latour at cira.ca
Thu Mar 31 12:33:58 UTC 2022
Exactly what I was asking, when and how will we collectively turn off the lights on IPv4?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca at nanog.org> On
> Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: March 30, 2022 7:29 PM
> To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6
> still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
> Sites looking at the traffic they get and saying, you know what all our
> customers connect to us over IPv6 with some of them also connecting over
> IPv4. I think we can stop supporting IPv4 now.
> ISP’s saying this IPv4aaS isn’t getting much traffic anymore lets out source it
> for the few customers that are still using it. Lots of ISPs are well down the
> path leading to this point by turning off IPv4 on the access networks.
> Home / enterprise networks. All my gear is IPv6 capable and supports
> IPv4aaS for the few legacy
> IPv4 sites I need to connect to. This is happening today.
> In the end almost all the IPv4 traffic with be with the third party IPv4aaS
> providers and collectively they will decide to turn off the lights.
> > On 30 Mar 2022, at 07:53, Jacques Latour <Jacques.Latour at cira.ca> wrote:
> > So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack
> > When are we going to give up on IPv4?
> > People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
> > What will it take to be IPv6 only?
> > 😊
> > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca at nanog.org> On
> > Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
> > Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> > To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> > Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
> > supported re: 202203261833.AYC
> > Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets
> > What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible
> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at
> least 2015.
> > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then
> perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t
> like your idea.
> > Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that
> your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might
> simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
> > Owen
> > On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> > Hi, Justin:
> > 1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all
> these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there
> has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas
> to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am
> sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
> > Regards,
> > Abe (2022-03-26 18:42)
> > On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
> > While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information,
> the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be
> defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP,
> among many other examples). It's important to separate the ideas from the
> > That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what
> personal freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6,
> with an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
> > Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way
> into wider use. It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly
> mutated into a production service. Why should we continue to expend
> effort to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into
> wider use?
> > Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain
> point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
> > Thank you
> > jms
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>
> > 3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6): I believe that there is a philosophic / logic
> baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that
> the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming
> that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is
> totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by its
> own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on
> my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not
> emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the
> golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades,
> still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real
> impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG