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 <jacques.lat...@cira.ca> 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 <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira...@nanog.org
> <mailto:nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira...@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Owen
> DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
> 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 <ayc...@avinta.com
> <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> 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 <ayc...@avinta.com
> <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> 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.
