On 6/16/26 10:33, Saku Ytti via NANOG wrote:
'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?
There were IPv6 Day and IPv6 Launch Day in 2011 and 2012. Why not some
major players agree to switch ipv4 off for a day?
Sure, it would be a mess, but wouldn't it be a useful one?
--
Hrant Dadivanyan - hrant(at)dadivanyan.net
/* "Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes." */
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/IIKSYGPTKHWLLRJG5CCHATFIGSTRHOJY/
