Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 00:49 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/8/21 09:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> > Membership fees can be painful, that's for sure.
> > They do have positive aspects, though :)
>
> I encourage other operators (especially the "major" ones - but really, everyone) to seriously consider supporting 
> this idea, and begin to circulate, within your organizations, whether you can receive purchase for this initiative 
> internally, so we put this discussion about IPv6 to bed, in the next 10 years.
>
> Just a simple piece of feedback about basic support back to this list would help kick things off, I feel.
>
> Mark.

I think the tipping point would be to get the major eyeball providers on board. If you can get them to agree (even if 
they just agree to surcharge IPv4 support by that time or even in 5 years), that will serve as a really strong forcing 
function for the content providers.

Comcast is well positioned to be able to do this, many of their customers have no viable alternative anyway, so not 
like they lose business almost no matter what they do. (They’ve proven this repeatedly). They’ve also already got full 
or nearly full IPv6 enablement for all of their customers (albeit it with ridiculously small prefixes for most of them).

The reality is that if we get content dual-stacked and stop requiring IPv4 for new eyeball installations, that’s the 
biggest initial win.

Owen