<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote">But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers, </div><div class="gmail_quote">at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any </div><div class="gmail_quote">success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks </div><div class="gmail_quote">out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be reachable </div><div class="gmail_quote">without v4 connectivity also in place. In order to deploy an IPv6 network </div><div class="gmail_quote">today, you *must* also have IPv4 addresses to work with. Try to ping </div><div class="gmail_quote"><a href="http://apple.com/" class="">apple.com</a> via v6, or <a href="http://microsoft.com/" class="">microsoft.com</a> via v6, and see how far you get.</div><div class="gmail_quote">Closer to home, try to ping <a href="http://juniper.com/juniper.net" class="">juniper.com/juniper.net</a> via v6, or <a href="http://nokia.com/" class="">nokia.com</a>,</div><div class="gmail_quote">and you'll find there's a whole bunch of assumptions that you've got </div><div class="gmail_quote">some level of working IPv4 in the picture to talk to your hardware and </div><div class="gmail_quote">software vendors.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>While I can’t ping those, I did turn off IPv4 and successfully pinged (and downloaded</div><div>web pages from):</div><div><a href="http://www.apple.com" class="">www.apple.com</a></div><div><a href="http://www.microsoft.com" class="">www.microsoft.com</a></div><div><a href="http://www.juniper.net" class="">www.juniper.net</a></div><div><a href="http://www.nokia.com" class="">www.nokia.com</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>I wasn’t able to find AAAA records for any useful variant of <a href="http://juniper.com" class="">juniper.com</a>, but since that’s</div><div>a bank (<a href="http://www.juniper.com" class="">www.juniper.com</a> has a CNAME record pointing to <a href="http://www.juniper.egs1b.barclaycards.com" class="">www.juniper.egs1b.barclaycards.com</a>),</div><div>I expect them to be laggards… To the best of my knowledge, very few banks have deployed</div><div>IPv6 in any meaningful way.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote">In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 </div><div class="gmail_quote">somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 </div><div class="gmail_quote">address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without </div><div class="gmail_quote">also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Well, yes and no. The only real limitation requiring you to “have some IPv4”</div><div>is the failure of other networks to deploy IPv6. That’s not exactly an architectural or</div><div>technical problem with IPv6, it’s a deployment issue.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote">For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's </div><div class="gmail_quote">not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is </div><div class="gmail_quote">exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282" class="">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282</a>:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_quote">"</div><pre class="gmail-newpage" style="font-size: 13.3333px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; break-before: page;"><span class="gmail-h2" style="display:inline;font-size:1em;font-weight:bold"><a class="gmail-selflink" id="gmail-section-6" href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6"><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">6</a>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough</span>
<span class="gmail-h2" style="display:inline;font-size:1em;font-weight:bold"> consensus</span>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3" class="">Section 3</a> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when
objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and
accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus
avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of
folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be
dealt with before consensus can be declared. “</pre></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Again, yes and no. While the failure of some networks to deploy IPv6 is proving debilitating to other</div><div>networks (including mine) ability to move forward with deprecation of IPv4 it’s really hard for me to</div><div>view that as a technical problem with IPv6, rather than a problem with the failure of those networks.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote">The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point </div><div class="gmail_quote">at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and </div><div class="gmail_quote">no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as </div><div class="gmail_quote">being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on </div><div class="gmail_quote">the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is</div><div class="gmail_quote">"solved."</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div>OK, it’s not solved. However, the solution is fully architected and widely deployed. The failure of some<div class="">networks to deploy the solution really isn’t a design problem or a protocol problem. Arguably, it’s not</div><div class="">really a technical problem. It’s certainly not a technical shortcoming of IPv6. It’s a deployment failure,</div><div class="">arguably a bureaucratic or political problem as much as anything.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>