On Mar 31, 2022, at 15:32 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.
For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282:
" 6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus
Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. " The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is "solved."
Matt
I dont know how many ways and times this needs to be said, but you said it quite well.
Joe
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that aren’t deploying IPv6 to get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4 backwater. Owen