Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

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

> On Sep 23, 2021, at 12:50 , Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us> wrote:
>
> Side question on this thread…
>
> Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to switch to IPv6 and drop IPv4 that the customers would 
> all be just fine with that? I believe that there are several applications used by some of the the loudest customers 
> (typically gamers and network gurus), not to mention some business applications that would break or be sub-optimal at 
> best. I see CGN as the band aid to this issue, not the cure to the problem.

Today? no.

At some point when a relatively small number of remaining laggards among major content providers move forward? Yes.

Do you really think that those applications/vendors wouldn’t move quickly if a couple of major eyeball providers 
announced “Effective X date”, we’re going to start offering a $X/month discount to any customer(s) who are willing to 
stop using IPv4.

You an only cover an arterial bleed with a band-aid for so long before it becomes silly, septic even. If you’re 
wondering how quick that point is coming up, I suggest you check your mirrors.

Owen

> Discuss…?
>
> - Brian
>
> > On Sep 23, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> >
> > > There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with.
> > > I don't think there is a need neither to invent IPv6 problems, nor to
> > > promote IPv6 advantages.  What we need is a way out of dual-stack-hell.
> >
> > I don’t disagree, but a reversion to IPv4-only certainly won’t do it.
> >
> > I think the only way out is through. Unfortunately, the IPv6 resistant forces
> > are making that hard for everyone else.
> >
> > Owen