request a static prefix from your ISP
On 5 November 2025 14:12:30 CET, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: >Try to propagate the ISP prefix over a few hops of the routed network (on the >site of some business). DHCPv6-PD or whatever. >Then read the documents of the closed IETF WG "Home Networking" to understand >what a mess is it. > >Yes, a small number of businesses have a shortage inside 10/8. But even for >them, IPv6 would be a much bigger challenge. >The majority of businesses have no problem with a 10/8 size. > >> I have serious doubt there will be another protocol that replaces it. >I do not believe too. Businesses would just stay on IPv4. >Ed/ >-----Original Message----- >From: Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 14:11 >To: [email protected] >Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment >(and sales) > >Am 05.11.2025 um 06:26:39 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard: > >> There is a big misunderstanding about IPv6 on mobile (and the majority >> of residential broadband): it is NOT an IPv6. The primary difference >> between IPv4 and IPv6 is the first hop: IPv6 has enormous flexibility >> and complexity here. > >Residential customers get PPP or even a direct ethernet connection. >Then DHCPv6-PD is being used. Works fine and is being used by millions of >people here in Germany. Business connections might get different protocols, >but they are set up by people who should know how to set them up. > >> But MBB/FBB completely disabled all IPv6 features on the first hop; > >Explain that further. > >> it is possible because L2 P2P connection is emulated here (PPP or GTP >> tunnel). Such castrated IPv6 works perfectly fine (for >> residential/mobile) because it is even simpler than IPv4. The big >> address space of IPv6 (64 bits) is a value here. >> >> There is no possibility of canceling the "subnet" concept for >> business. > >It is available in IPv6 too. RFCs say they should get a /48, so 2^16 subnets. >In case they need more, they can request more from the RIR. > >I've seen large enterprises where 10.0.0.0/8 isn't enough. And their NAT crap >is just a PITA for everyone who has to do with their network. > >> IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses. > >It is less complex than IPv4 subnetting, especially when partial NAT is >involved. If network engineers can't handle IPv6 subnetting, they should apply >for another job. > >> Hence, IPv4 will stay for business forever. > >I have serious doubt it will stay when IPv6 will be mandatory (remember how >fast businesses implemented TLS or DKIM when the big players requested that?). > >> IMHO: the world would finally accept: "reduced IPv6 for subscribers, >> IPv4 for businesses". IMHO: the full IPv6 (it was called "Next >> Generation" 3 decades ago) has no future. Eduard > >I have serious doubt there will be another protocol that replaces it. >IPv6 is now already present in most protocol stacks (I know that devices >without it exist), at carrier networks and at many ISPs. A new protocol needs >time to be implemented and shares the same problem as >IPv4: There are people who do not want it and there is no "IPv4 with longer >addresses that is backward compatible" (and cannot be). > >-- >Gruß >Marco > >Send unsolicited bulk mail to [email protected] >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VLR65KJZ3GB6REMTBPP7DAOQ5G2XP5OU/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XVCSPKIVBAGT5DGWRSCNZVKJGCL3CDIS/
