I can see it’s time to present a NANOG talk “How IPv6 saved the Internet”
I’m just going to turn this thread into slides. The talk writes itself! -mel via cell > On Apr 1, 2025, at 5:03 PM, Mark Andrews via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Single IPv6 stack in the home is achievable today. Single IPv6 stack in the > enterprise is achievable today. Single IPv6 stack in the access network is > achievable today. This is how most phones work today. The node if it needs > to talk to an IPv4 server uses one of the forms of IPv4AAS. Most probably > 464XLAT. There are billions of devices that do that today. > > Today if you attend conferences your IPv4 address is most probably 192.0.0.1 > if they support IPv6-mostly (IPv4 option 108) and you have an up to date OS. > > Enabling IPv6-mostly on the access network will allow your IPv4 lease load to > drop as CPE start to support it. > > The hard part will be turning down the IPv4 connections to your peers when the > rest of the world has switched to IPv6. > > Mark > >> On 2 Apr 2025, at 10:05, Alex Buie via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> At the risk of oversimplifying: >> >> “just because you can divide 8 apples between 2 people with long division >> on paper, it’s a heck of a lot easier just to count off if you can get away >> with it” >> >> >> But this raises an interesting question; is there ever an actual end? What >> does IPv6 adoption completion look like? Is there a definition of success? >> You can almost certainly not buy a physical GP computer today at least that >> does not support static IPv6 addressing in some manner, at least in terms >> of network elements. And I could get IPv6 connectivity at nearly any >> address in the US, (where I have experience) if I’m willing to pay enough >> money for it. what else is there? Is IPv6 only considered successful with >> IPv4 is truly turned off? There’s always gonna be people who want 32 bits >> instead of 128 because it’s easier to carry around in your brain and doubly >> so if you don’t even need the rest of those bits for what you’re trying to >> do. >> >> The allure of only having to set up a single protocol stack is very strong, >> but I just don’t see it happening in my lifetime in a “production” >> capacity. >> >> You’re always gonna at least need some broker box somewhere with your last >> /29 talking to the vestiges of the companies still running exchange 2003. >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/MDVNX6WMAJV47OIIGGPYLZMCAHKPYBDE/ > > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7BQSH35WPUEKTSRFOJIRGFYABWLM6IMS/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/DZS2DESH7DZ7H6VZIQRU6HYLDSKUXPJA/
