On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote: > I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives? 1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol that magically creates a better and quicker transition? 2. Drop ipv6 and extend above the network layer for the forseeable future? By extend I mean things which only introduce ipv4-compatible changes: NATs, TURN, CDN at the edge, application overlays and other higher layer solutions. 3. Live with ipv6 and continue to engineer simpler, better, easier and no-brainer deployments? I'll admit it risks being a "sunk cost falacy" argument to perpetuate ipv6, but are the alternatives so clear that we're really ready to drop ipv6? > so much as IPv6 has not yet achieved its goal. As someone previously mentioned, "legacy" support can have an extremely long tail which might superficially make "achieving a goal" look like a failure. Forget ss7 and SIP, what about 100LL vs unleaded petrol or 1/2" bolts vs 13mm bolts? Both must be 50 years in the making with many more years to come. The glacial grind of displacing legacy tech is hardly unique to network protocols. In the grand scheme of things, the goal of replacing ipv4 with ipv6 has really only had a relatively short life-time compared to many other tech transitions. Perhaps it's time to adopt the patience of the physical world? Mark.
