On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's > > a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on the > > Internet, but it looks like the draft hasn't been updated for two > > years and it is not adopted by any IETF working group. I don't see how > > this can go anywhere without IETF support. Also, I suggest that you > > look at the IPv10 proposal since that was very similar in intent. One > > of the reasons that IPv10 shot down was because protocol transition > > mechanisms were more interesting ten years ago than today. IPv6 has > > good traction now. In fact, it's probably the case that it's now > > easier to bring up IPv6 than to try to make IPv4 options work over the > > Internet. > > +1 > > Many hosts do not use IPv4 anymore. > > We even have the project making IPv4 support in linux optional.
I agree on these points, but I'd like to figure what can be done to put a bit more pressure on ISPs to *always* provide IPv6. It's still very hard to have decent connectivity at home and without this it will continue to be marginalize. I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine with less), there's none at work (I don't even know if the ISP supports it, at least it was never ever mentioned so probably they don't know about this), and some ISPs only provide a /64 which is as ridiculous as providing a single address as it forces the end user to NAT thus breaking the end-to-end principle. Ideally with IoT at the door, every home connection should have at least a /60 and enterprises should have a /56, and this by default, without having to request anything. Maybe setting up a public list of ISPs where users don't have at least a /60 by default could help, but I suspect that most of them will consider that as long as their competitors are on the list there's no emergency. Willy
