Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

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

iMac:owen (112) ~ % host www.amazon.com                                                                                 
                2022/03/31 17:16:40
www.amazon.com is an alias for tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com.
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com is an alias for d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net has address 143.204.129.80

and

iMac:owen (113) ~ % dig -t aaaa www.amazon.com                                                                          
                2022/03/31 17:26:36

; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t aaaa www.amazon.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33930
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.amazon.com.                        IN      AAAA

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.amazon.com.         228     IN      CNAME   tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com.
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com. 45 IN CNAME   d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. 46 IN    SOA     ns-130.awsdns-16.com. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 
86400

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.159.10.2#53(192.159.10.2)
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 31 17:26:50 PDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 206

0.002u 0.017s 0:00.02 50.0%     0+0k 0+0io 2pf+0w
iMac:owen (114) ~ % dig -t aaaa tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com                                                        
                2022/03/31 17:26:50

; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t aaaa tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 25417
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com. IN   AAAA

;; ANSWER SECTION:
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com. 21 IN CNAME   d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. 22 IN    SOA     ns-130.awsdns-16.com. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 
86400

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.159.10.2#53(192.159.10.2)
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 31 17:27:14 PDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 188

0.002u 0.005s 0:00.00 0.0%      0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
iMac:owen (115) ~ % dig -t aaaa d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.                                                          
                2022/03/31 17:27:14

; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t aaaa d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63871
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. IN      AAAA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. 5 IN     SOA     ns-130.awsdns-16.com. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 
86400

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.159.10.2#53(192.159.10.2)
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 31 17:27:31 PDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 142


So… As I said… Amazon.

Owen


> On Mar 31, 2022, at 16:00 , Andras Toth <diosbejgli () gmail com> wrote:
>
> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-ipv6-only-subnets-and-ec2-instances/ 
> <https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-ipv6-only-subnets-and-ec2-instances/>
>
> > On 1 Apr 2022, at 06:44, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> >
> > In short:
> >      Amazon
> >      Alibaba
> >      Google Cloud
> >
> > And a few other laggards that are key destinations that a lot of eyeball customers expect to be
> > able to reach.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 29, 2022, at 13:53 , Jacques Latour <Jacques.Latour () cira ca <mailto:Jacques.Latour () cira ca>> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack IPv4/IPv6?
> > > When are we going to give up on IPv4?
> > > People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
> > > What will it take to be IPv6 only?
> > >  
> > > 😊
> > >  
> > > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca () nanog org <mailto:nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca () 
> > > nanog org>> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
> > > Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> > > To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com <mailto:aychen () avinta com>>
> > > Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
> > >  
> > > Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets introduced.
> > >  
> > > What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 
> > > related forward in the IETF since at least 2015.
> > >  
> > > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you 
> > > are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.
> > >  
> > > Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a 
> > > defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
> > >  
> > > Owen
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com <mailto:aychen () avinta com>> wrote:
> > >  
> > > Hi, Justin:
> > >  
> > > 1)    "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ...     ":   After all these discussions, are you still 
> > > denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement 
> > > ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to 
> > > learn about it. Thanks.
> > >  
> > > Regards,
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Abe (2022-03-26 18:42)
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
> > > While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information, the means of getting that information 
> > > from place to place is and has to be defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP, 
> > > among many other examples).  It's important to separate the ideas from the plumbing.
> > >  
> > > That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal freedoms are being impacted by working 
> > > toward deploying IPv6, with an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
> > >  
> > > Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into wider use.  It's a classic case of a 
> > > test deployment that suddenly mutated into a production service.  Why should we continue to expend effort to 
> > > perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider use?
> > >  
> > > Is IPv6 a perfect protocol?  Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
> > >  
> > > Thank you
> > > jms
> > >  
> > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com <mailto:aychen () avinta com>> wrote:
> > >  
> > > 3)    Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6):    I believe that there is a philosophic / logic baseline that we need to sort out, 
> > > first. That is, we must keep in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming 
> > > that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a 
> > > principle. A project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the 
> > > competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward 
> > > compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three 
> > > decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress, 
> > > not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.