I rarely post here but the observation: > > we seem no closer to IPv4 being left behind like a relic of the stone > age > draws me in.
My research suggests, and I wouldn't mind being rubbished, that as long as CSPs can continue to meet demands with a technology, then the cost of investment in newer technology is a significant impediment to its adoption. Cheers, Etienne On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 12:33, Paul Mansfield <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sad that three years after this thought exercise: > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06597.html > > we seem no closer to IPv4 being left behind like a relic of the stone > age. And with FTTP being rolled out across the country at a reasonable > pace, I would hope that the CPEs will have enough performance for IPv6 > given they need to handle up to gigabit performance? > > --- this is what I wrote --- > > Here's a thought. > Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet > connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must > support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs > can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly > consumers, who can't implement their own solution. > > I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes > more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real > deadline nothing ever finishes! > > > * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and > Sky. > > I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be > somewhat silent on this ;-) > > -- <https://www.um.edu.mt/> Etienne-Victor Depasquale | Assistant Lecturer Faculty of ICT Department of Communication and Computer Engineering Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale <https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/facebook> [image: https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/twitter] <https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/twitter> <https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/linkedin> <https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/instagram> <https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/youtube>
