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

[nanog--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

IPv6 is just IPv4 with longer addresses, no IP checksum field, and a few optional features. Can you be more specific in 
your complaints? Which one of these is your complaint about?


On 5 November 2025 10:38:46 CET, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> IPv6 is not possible to fix - does not matter who is guilty. It is bad design because it was a "consensus" (read 
> "compromise") between different politicians pushing IPv4, IPX, Apple Talk, Apollo Domain, DEC net, banyan VINES, etc. 
> IPv6 has satisfied all requests - it is really flexible architecture.
>
> IPv6 inside P2P tunnel (with all features disabled) - is actually not IPv6.
> The statistics is misleading, almost all installations are residential/mobile where all first-hop functionality is 
> cancelled.
> Actual IPv6 progress (where 1st hop complexity is exercised) is below 1%. IMHO: It could not surpass 1% long-term.
> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 11:26
> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
> Cc: Marco Moock <mm () dorfdsl de>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
> Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 08:27, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> > There is no possibility of canceling the "subnet" concept for business.
> > IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses.
> > Hence, IPv4 will stay for business forever.
>
> You may very well be right, but it doesn't have to be that. And if it is, we are to blame, we were here when it 
> happened.
>
> Dual stack is expensive, complicated and reduces availability and quality. End users ultimately pay a premium for 
> lower quality because of what we did, not to mention the companies which will never exist to compete with oligarchs, 
> because procuring sufficient amounts of IPv4 addresses was too large a barrier to compete already in an uneven playing 
> field.
>
> We should have been single stack for more than a decade by now, with
> IPv4 being IPX or AppleTalk, relegated to some odd corners. And yes, we can pull various metrics to show 'no, things 
> are actually progressing swimmingly', but that just stops us from looking into the mirror and accepting we cocked this 
> up badly and need to do something meaningful and real.
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list 
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/VMI27Y4J2TZU3U537QMCMIQDJ7LWCDKI/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/3BQNH3AU4L75ICXU2P33RQ22LA5PRMDS/