> > Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP.
Nor should they. Stop trying to over-engineer solutions. Not everything needs hyper performant connectivity with sub second failover. On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 8:29 PM Mike Hammett via NANOG < [email protected]> wrote: > Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "sronan--- via NANOG" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "Arie Vayner" <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 4:24:25 PM > Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day > > Sorry, but this is NOT a significant use case, and I wouldn’t buy service > from any Internet provider who doesn’t support BGP. > > But frankly you could implement this exact same solution with IPv6 without > BGP anyway. > > Shane > > > On Jun 16, 2026, at 5:21 PM, Arie Vayner via NANOG < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > There is also a significant set of use cases that currently work better, > or > > at least more easily, with NAT. > > > > The most common example is small branch sites with dual ISP uplinks. > There > > are a vast number of these sites deployed using two small > provider-assigned > > (PA) NAT pools. This setup is widely understood, simple to implement, and > > reliable. > > > > Moving these sites to IPv6 via BGP is often not feasible. Many ISP > circuits > > do not support BGP, and the teams operating these sites lack the time to > > navigate that complexity. Furthermore, other IPv6 dual-homing options > often > > don't align with enterprise requirements or expected complexity (or > really > > simplicity) levels. > > > > In my view, this is a core reason why IPv6 adoption remains low in the > > enterprise space: it requires fundamental paradigm shifts rather than a > > simple protocol update. > > > > Thanks, > > Arie > > > > > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026, 8:10 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>> Is NAT still such a severe problem that we needed a different protocol? > >>> Ask 1000 NANOG engineers, get 1000 different answers. In practice, no. > >>> IPv4 still works. > >> > >> > >> There are also plenty of well established things that NAT causes > problems > >> for, along with less than desirable protocol and standardization choices > >> that have been made because of the existence of NAT. > >> > >> We've gotten really good at engineering ways to disguise these issues so > >> users don't notice them. On one had that's good because user/application > >> experiences are better, on the other hand it sucks because people think > a > >> non-visible problem isn't a problem anymore. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:53 AM Brian Knight via NANOG < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2026-06-16 01:33, Saku Ytti via NANOG wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> It was the most comprehensive solution for the NAT problem. But NAT > >>> became the accepted way we connect to the Internet. > >>> > >>> World + dog knows how to connect to it, troubleshoot it, look at NAT > >>> tables on their edge firewall or router. > >>> > >>> Is NAT still such a severe problem that we needed a different protocol? > >>> Ask 1000 NANOG engineers, get 1000 different answers. In practice, no. > >>> IPv4 still works. > >>> > >>> Economics are a slightly different story, but so far, IPv4 space isn't > >>> prohibitively expensive. > >>> > >>> -Brian > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NANOG mailing list > >>> > >>> > >> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QEOMV5GN4WLNYOH7QZWYP5E26ZJ5AO57/ > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NANOG mailing list > >> > >> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ABXC2CERUCF64YKCK5YXOJTLPRJSTPBV/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/BZ6LKHSDLZ3WOR4GW2B544OKLSHFBIIG/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HZLJOUK3CNBHHHS2KLRVNETDA3U7DNCZ/ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/W3CJ2XL3YV6T5CI2HUOHBMZITT6NH22A/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/IM6577BF32AI2YXEICBG6OPVSVKYOLKA/
