https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-ipv6-only-subnets-and-ec2-instances/
> On 1 Apr 2022, at 06:44, Owen DeLong via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > > In short: > Amazon > Alibaba > Google Cloud > > And a few other laggards that are key destinations that a lot of eyeball > customers expect to be > able to reach. > > Owen > > >> On Mar 29, 2022, at 13:53 , Jacques Latour <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack >> IPv4/IPv6? >> When are we going to give up on IPv4? >> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years. >> What will it take to be IPv6 only? >> >> 😊 >> >> From: NANOG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of >> Owen DeLong via NANOG >> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM >> To: Abraham Y. Chen <[email protected]> >> Cc: NANOG <[email protected]> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported >> re: 202203261833.AYC >> >> Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets >> introduced. >> >> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible >> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at >> least 2015. >> >> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then >> perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t >> like your idea. >> >> Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that >> your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might >> simply be a lack of merit in your ideas. >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, Justin: >> >> 1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After >> all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, >> there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement >> ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it >> public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Abe (2022-03-26 18:42) >> >> >> >> >> On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote: >> While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information, >> the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be >> defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP, >> among many other examples). It's important to separate the ideas from the >> plumbing. >> >> That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal >> freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with an eye >> toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future? >> >> Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into >> wider use. It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly mutated >> into a production service. Why should we continue to expend effort to >> perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider >> use? >> >> Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain >> point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion. >> >> Thank you >> jms >> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6): I believe that there is a philosophic / logic >> baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that >> the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming that >> by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is >> totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by >> its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. >> Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not >> emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the >> golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three >> decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various >> tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6. >
