Re: V6 still not supported

["james.cutler () consultant com" <james.cutler () consultant com>]

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com <mailto:jmaimon () jmaimon com>> wrote:
> ...
> Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and 
> alleviate the resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address shortage is still a 
> problem is a tally of multiple years of failure.

I noticed that no one on NANOG in the nineties predicted the foot-dragging and whining regarding transition from IPv4 
toIPv6. We probably should have done so. I, for one, was busy trying to manage interconnects between divisions with 
their autonomous ref1918 worlds. I applauded the prospect of global unique addressing. So far the technical process has 
had rocky moments, but it ongoing failure has not happened.

Any failure experienced is largely a failure of management/accounts to invest in the future for something that the 
media can not turn into sound bites and flashy images. This displays a clear lack of enlightened self interest. 

Even in my home office, over the last nine years I have observed continually increasing IPv6 access for myself and my 
clients.  Comcast  has demonstrated that IPv6 has no deleterious effect on typical user experience. Apple and Microsoft 
have provided admirable support for IPv6 coexisting with IPv4 on end systems. I suggest that it may be more important 
to deploy solutions to BufferBloat, to the benefit of both IPv4 and IPv6 since it will improve the user experience, 
than to try to extend IPv4 lifetime, an effort with diminishing returns.