Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

In short:
        Amazon
        Alibaba
        Google Cloud

And a few other laggards that are key destinations that a lot of eyeball customers expect to be
able to reach.

Owen


> On Mar 29, 2022, at 13:53 , Jacques Latour <Jacques.Latour () cira ca> wrote:
>
> So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack IPv4/IPv6?
> 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 () nanog org <mailto:nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca () nanog 
> org>> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com <mailto:aychen () avinta com>>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () 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 introduced.
>  
> 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 () avinta com <mailto:aychen () avinta com>> wrote:
>  
> 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 plumbing.
>  
> 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 () avinta com <mailto:aychen () avinta com>> wrote:
>  
> 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.