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 12:26 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05, jordi.palet--- via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> > In actual customer deployments I see the same levels, even up to 85% of IPv6 traffic. It basically depends on the usage 
> > of the caches and the % of residential vs corporate customers.
> You think you are contributing to the IPv6 cause, by explaining how
> positive the situation is. But in reality you are damaging it greatly,
> because you're not communicating that we are not on a path to IPv4
> free Internet. If we had been on such a path, we would have been IPv4
> free for more than a decade. And unless we admit we are not on that
> path, we will not work to get on that path.
An ipv4 free network would be nice, but is hardly needed. There will 
always be a long tail of ipv4 and so what? You deal with it at your 
borders as a piece of non-recurring engineering and that is that. The 
mobile operators model seems to be working pretty well for them and 
seems likely that it is an opex cost down for them since they don't have 
to run two networks internally nor deal with the cost of ipv4 subnets 
(or at least not as much? not sure how it exactly works). Worrying about 
whether ipv4 will ever go away misses the point, imo.

Mike