On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 6:26 AM Laszlo H via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is unfortunate that it worked out this way, but if we're going to > shut one of them off it should be IPv6 - the one that's adding no > benefit for anybody - just cost, complexity and reduced reliability. Just a reminder, in the USA ipv6 is the dominant protocol, from some meaningful vantage points https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html > The idea of intentionally hobbling IPv4 precisely because it works, in > order to make IPv6 look more appealing, is a perverse and bad faith > approach. Yet this is what people have been working on for the past 10 > years to try to make IPv6 appear relevant. If there were a benefit to > gain from IPv6 then most would have migrated to it already. At this > point it's just a few zealots who are trying to figure out how to > undermine IPv4 at scale, so IPv6 becomes the next best choice. The > decisions to make things different from IPv4 are not helping either > (RA/DHCP, multiple routers and the like). But the biggest turnoff is > the group of people who reply to every networking thread with "IPv6 IPv6 > IPv6" even when it's not relevant. There is even coercive language like > "legacy internet" being thrown around. This has turned into dogmatic > loaded framing rather than engineering. > > -Laszlo > > On 6/16/26 12:37 PM, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote: > > The goal isn't to shut down IPv4, it's to let it starve to death. > > I didn't receive a document saying I should disable NETBEUI or IPX/SPX on > > my networks. > > > > IMHO > > I believe the focus of the effort should be on causing technical > discomfort > > and embarrassment to those who maintain applications that are not yet > > capable of providing interoperability between clients that are on IPv4 > and > > clients that are on IPv6. > > > > And in my view, the biggest villains in this case are the gaming > platforms. > > > > Making these guys abandon the exclusively legacy methodology and focus on > > IPv6 is one of the keys that will begin to remove the last shackles to > > allow the end user to be on IPv6 only and not even know that IPv4 and > IPv6 > > exist. > > > > > > Em ter., 16 de jun. de 2026 às 03:34, Saku Ytti via NANOG < > > [email protected]> escreveu: > > > >> 'ello, > >> > >> I've babbled about this before, but apparently I'm babbling about it > again. > >> > >> Does anyone feel responsibility for the dual stack mess we've created? > >> It wasn't here when we found the Internet, and we're going to leave it > >> here after we leave, does not really jive with the whole leave > >> campground cleaner than found it ethos. > >> > >> I don't see any future where organically IPv4 dies in such a way that > >> people offering services on the Internet are comfortable offering them > >> IPv6 only, the long tail will be too expensive to ignore. > >> > >> Dual stack adds complexity, cost, reduces quality and security. It is > >> also blatantly an antitrust issue, as established players with access > >> to large allocations can outcompete new entrants with no IPv4 > >> allocation. > >> > >> In practice I'm thinking about something where relevant players all > >> sign an agreement to drop ipv4 at their edge in e..g 15 or 20 years. > >> Creating clear business justification for people to implement IPv6 in > >> their next upgrade cycle. Today if I'm an edge with the IPv4 addresses > >> I need, I wouldn't consider IPv6, because that's just a cost to me, > >> with no upside. > >> I know I could get some transit shops to sign off on such an > >> agreement, but no one cares about transit, this obviously doesn't work > >> without Amazon and Facebook et.al. > >> > >> Sure edges still can have IPv4, but that's like edge having IPX or > >> AppleTalk, it'll be highly local issue, no one expects to reach > >> anywhere with it, and anticipates to translate 100% of external > >> traffic. > >> > >> Amazon? Facebook? Google? Microsoft? Any appetite? > >> > >> -- > >> ++ytti > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NANOG mailing list > >> > >> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/E2XOPUM5UDSQYLXJKBAL57LDBASU72M4/ > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3DJYDO3OC34IREILFR7JUYPF6ULVTEVT/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/6MVUEDH4IJAMQ35KZZOAXHGF3MN5F7GU/
