IPv6 is just IPv4 with longer addresses, no IP checksum field, and a few optional features. Can you be more specific in your complaints? Which one of these is your complaint about?
On 5 November 2025 10:38:46 CET, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: >IPv6 is not possible to fix - does not matter who is guilty. It is bad design >because it was a "consensus" (read "compromise") between different politicians >pushing IPv4, IPX, Apple Talk, Apollo Domain, DEC net, banyan VINES, etc. IPv6 >has satisfied all requests - it is really flexible architecture. > >IPv6 inside P2P tunnel (with all features disabled) - is actually not IPv6. >The statistics is misleading, almost all installations are residential/mobile >where all first-hop functionality is cancelled. >Actual IPv6 progress (where 1st hop complexity is exercised) is below 1%. >IMHO: It could not surpass 1% long-term. >Eduard >-----Original Message----- >From: Saku Ytti <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 11:26 >To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> >Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]>; Vasilenko Eduard ><[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment >(and sales) > >On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 08:27, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> There is no possibility of canceling the "subnet" concept for business. >> IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses. >> Hence, IPv4 will stay for business forever. > >You may very well be right, but it doesn't have to be that. And if it is, we >are to blame, we were here when it happened. > >Dual stack is expensive, complicated and reduces availability and quality. End >users ultimately pay a premium for lower quality because of what we did, not >to mention the companies which will never exist to compete with oligarchs, >because procuring sufficient amounts of IPv4 addresses was too large a barrier >to compete already in an uneven playing field. > >We should have been single stack for more than a decade by now, with >IPv4 being IPX or AppleTalk, relegated to some odd corners. And yes, we can >pull various metrics to show 'no, things are actually progressing swimmingly', >but that just stops us from looking into the mirror and accepting we cocked >this up badly and need to do something meaningful and real. >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VMI27Y4J2TZU3U537QMCMIQDJ7LWCDKI/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3BQNH3AU4L75ICXU2P33RQ22LA5PRMDS/
