nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 09:50:14 +0300
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:51, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
Hopefully this idea that “you need to do IPv4 anyhow” will die some day soon.
Fully agreed, I just don't see the driver. But I can imagine a different timeline where in 2000 several tier1 signed mutual binding contracts to drop IPv4 at the edge in 2020. And no one opposed, because 20 years before was 1980, and 20 years in the future IPv4 wont' anymore be a thing, it's clear due to exponential growth. And we'd all be enjoying a much simplified stack and lower costs all around (vendor, us, customers). Why is this not possible now? Why would we not sign this mutual agreement for 2040? Otherwise we'll be having this same discussion in 2040. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Saku Ytti (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Bjørn Mork (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Niels Bakker (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Bjørn Mork (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 07)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Saku Ytti (Sep 07)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Tinka (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Saku Ytti (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Tinka (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Tinka (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Tinka (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Brandon Butterworth (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Tinka (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)