Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 1/15/24 12:56 AM, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
> No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which 
> doesn’t mean that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we 
> are missing many enterprises.

I don't think what's going on internally with enterprise needs to change 
much if they just gatewayed to a v6 upstream instead of v4 at the border 
if they were given that option. The problem has always been with ISP's 
and routers. When v6 first started to percolate (early 90's) i looked at 
it for my embedded OS and the projects that used it and didn't figure it 
would take much effort to implement it. So for hosts i really don't 
think that was a roadblock. But if hosts don't have something upstream 
to sink v6 traffic and especially to access the public internet there's 
not much incentive to implement it or deploy it. ISP's used the excuse 
that routers didn't implement it which was definitely a huge problem but 
as it turns out it was still an excuse since a lot has changed in the 
last 20 years and still rollout continues at a glacial pace.

I think one of the more encouraging trends are ISP's and enterprises 
switching over to v6 internally as a cost saving measure to not run a 
dual network. Aren't Comcast and Facebook examples?

It's sort of disturbing that there are still people on this list that 
want to relitigate something that happened 30 years ago. that reeks of 
religion not tech. By all means, set up CGNAT's in a pique.

Mike