Am 02.11.2025 um 09:36:04 Uhr schrieb Saku Ytti via NANOG:
I would have no reason to assume there is anything designed or planned here. It's just people don't use IPv6, and IPv6 things can be broken and nothing happens.
That's just plain BS. There are various networks with IPv6 nowadays (have a look a the Google and apnic statistic pages) and various IPv6-only nets already exist. If it breaks, people will notice it.
I blame myself, and the community. We were here when IPv6 happened, and we cocked it up. This pretend dual-stack environment, where IPv6 actually isn't business critical, wasn't supposed to happen. Time gap between IPv4 RFC and IPv6 RFC is smaller than the time gap between IPv6 RFC and today, we've had longer tenure of migration to IPv6 than we have IPv4 only.
Because the amount of networks and machines massively increased during that time.
There is no other way to frame this than as an abject failure. And trying to paint this in some other light, just removes any traction to actually solve this.
Is there any good alternative - or even a concept? I've never seen that and every time people come up with that, they suggest "IPv4 with a larger address space", but don't understand that such a thing cannot be implemented alongside with current IPv4, so no migration plan at all.
Actual solution will need some kind of voluntary or involuntary action by oligarchic big tech companies, so that they'd have a future date upon which they stop serving IPv4, which will create motivation for downstreams to adopt IPv6.
Some small sites already did that: https://konecipv4.cz/en/
Maybe someone could convince the FTC, FCC or DOJ that IPv4 is an antitrust issue they need to regulate. Which it absolutely is, it is an additional barrier of entry for many types of businesses favoring established large players over new entrants.
IIRC I've read that certain US government contracts require IPv6 compatibility. Device which don't support it cannot be used. -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1762072564muell@cartoonies.org