Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

[Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Am 05.11.2025 um 06:26:39 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard:

> There is a big misunderstanding about IPv6 on mobile (and the
> majority of residential broadband): it is NOT an IPv6. The primary
> difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the first hop: IPv6 has enormous
> flexibility and complexity here.

Residential customers get PPP or even a direct ethernet connection.
Then DHCPv6-PD is being used. Works fine and is being used by millions
of people here in Germany. Business connections might get different
protocols, but they are set up by people who should know how to set
them up.

> But MBB/FBB completely disabled all IPv6 features on the first hop;

Explain that further.

> it is possible because L2 P2P connection is emulated here (PPP or GTP
> tunnel). Such castrated IPv6 works perfectly fine (for
> residential/mobile) because it is even simpler than IPv4. The big
> address space of IPv6 (64 bits) is a value here.
>
> There is no possibility of canceling the "subnet" concept for
> business.

It is available in IPv6 too. RFCs say they should get a /48, so 2^16
subnets. In case they need more, they can request more from the RIR.

I've seen large enterprises where 10.0.0.0/8 isn't enough. And their
NAT crap is just a PITA for everyone who has to do with their network.

> IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses.

It is less complex than IPv4 subnetting, especially when partial NAT is
involved. If network engineers can't handle IPv6 subnetting, they should
apply for another job.

> Hence, IPv4 will stay for business forever.

I have serious doubt it will stay when IPv6 will be mandatory (remember
how fast businesses implemented TLS or DKIM when the big players
requested that?).

> IMHO: the world would finally accept: "reduced IPv6 for subscribers,
> IPv4 for businesses". IMHO: the full IPv6 (it was called "Next
> Generation" 3 decades ago) has no future. Eduard

I have serious doubt there will be another protocol that replaces it.
IPv6 is now already present in most protocol stacks (I know that
devices without it exist), at carrier networks and at many ISPs. A new
protocol needs time to be implemented and shares the same problem as
IPv4: There are people who do not want it and there is no "IPv4 with
longer addresses that is backward compatible" (and cannot be).

-- 
Gruß
Marco

Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1762320399muell () cartoonies org

Attachment: _bin
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/LL2EDNPBFVJ2CJTKL7V5G3Q7VRO6NRMK/