Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

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

> On Sep 6, 2021, at 12:27 AM, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 10:20, Bjørn Mork <bjorn () mork no> wrote:
>
> > Adding new access infrastructure of any sort (Fixed Wireless is the
> > hype...)?  Why would you want to continue being stupid even if you
> > implemented dual-stack for all your fibre, hfc and dsl customers?  You
> > can save a lot by dropping dual-stack complexities in PGWs and FWA CPEs,
> > even if we assume most of the fibre/hfc/dsl value chain is reused.
>
> Can you? You need to offer IPv4 anyhow and all the complexities
> related to that, i.e. some stateful box. Why would I offer in addition
> to that IPv6, which is not being requested by anyone. And by anyone I
> mean anyone I want as customer, as those who request it, are probably
> going to be expensive to support and I need to subsidise those with my
> regular customers, so I'd rather not cater to those.

You don’t necessarily have to carry IPv4 across your network with all the
complexities involved in that. You can do IPv4 at the edges with all IPv6
in the middle through a variety of techniques which are relatively trivial
to implement these days.

Hopefully this idea that “you need to do IPv4 anyhow” will die some day soon.

Unfortunately, nobody wants to lead because it comes with certain negative
commercial implications. Perverse incentives remain a problem.

The race is on:

        Will we get IPv6 deployed before our similar failures with regard
        to climate change (for amusingly similar perverse incentive reasons)
        render the planet uninhabitable?

Owen