'ello, I've babbled about this before, but apparently I'm babbling about it again. 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. I don't see any future where organically IPv4 dies in such a way that people offering services on the Internet are comfortable offering them IPv6 only, the long tail will be too expensive to ignore. Dual stack adds complexity, cost, reduces quality and security. It is also blatantly an antitrust issue, as established players with access to large allocations can outcompete new entrants with no IPv4 allocation. In practice I'm thinking about something where relevant players all sign an agreement to drop ipv4 at their edge in e..g 15 or 20 years. Creating clear business justification for people to implement IPv6 in their next upgrade cycle. Today if I'm an edge with the IPv4 addresses I need, I wouldn't consider IPv6, because that's just a cost to me, with no upside. I know I could get some transit shops to sign off on such an agreement, but no one cares about transit, this obviously doesn't work without Amazon and Facebook et.al. Sure edges still can have IPv4, but that's like edge having IPX or AppleTalk, it'll be highly local issue, no one expects to reach anywhere with it, and anticipates to translate 100% of external traffic. Amazon? Facebook? Google? Microsoft? Any appetite? -- ++ytti