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

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

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.
But MBB/FBB completely disabled all IPv6 features on the first hop; 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.
IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses.
Hence, IPv4 will stay for business forever.

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
-----Original Message-----
From: Javier J via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 18:00
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Marco Moock <mm () dorfdsl de>; Javier J <javier () advancedmachines us>
Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

I agree with Marco.

> It's just people don't use IPv6, and IPv6 things can be broken
and nothing happens.

That is BS. I would gamble 95+% of mobile traffic is ipv6 only. If anything the telecom's have had to invent new RFCs 
and workarounds to make sure clients can get to ipv4 only services. see 464XLAT as an example. see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6877



I'm on an old edgerouter lite3 at home at the moment and have no problem with my ipv6 prefix delegations. You assign an 
ID to each vlan for the RA and it uses that in the prefix.

Example I get delegated prefix that contains ...."a8e3"...  for an IoT vlan indexed as 3 and an "a8e1" on a vlan tagged 
as 1

This isn't rocket science.
We should be IPv6 all the things. The only excuse is the IT management with the "if it isn't broken don't fix it" 
approach to technology. They can get left behind.

========== Notes and data below ==========
Google::
As of 2025, it is estimated there are approximately 8.31 to 8.8 billion mobile phones in operation worldwide, including 
both smartphones and feature phones.

As of late 2024/early 2025, several major trends indicate high mobile IPv6
usage:

   - High Operator Deployment Rates: Many major mobile network operators
   have aggressively adopted IPv6. In the US, for example, T-Mobile and AT&T
   show over 84% to 90% of their traffic is over IPv6. In India, Reliance Jio
   reports over 92% IPv6 deployment.
   - Mobile Driving Adoption: The mobile and residential segments are the
   primary drivers of global IPv6 adoption, accounting for a large portion of
   the overall traffic statistics, which globally sit around 45-49% of all
   internet traffic.
   - Prevalence of IPv6-only Cores: Many mobile networks are transitioning
   their internal infrastructure to be IPv6-only, using mechanisms like
   464XLAT to support legacy IPv4-only applications and content. This
   simplifies network operations and reduces costs.
   - Client vs. Server Side Discrepancy: While most mobile devices and
   networks are highly capable of using IPv6, a major barrier is that only
   about 30% of websites and servers are IPv6-enabled. This means that even
   with IPv6-ready devices, connections often still fall back to IPv4 for a
   substantial portion of content.


On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 4:30 AM Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> Am 02.11.2025 um 09:36:04 Uhr schrieb Saku Ytti via NANOG:
>
> > I would have no reason to assume there is anything designed or 
> > planned here. It's just people don't use IPv6, and IPv6 things can 
> > be broken and nothing happens.
>
> That's just plain BS. There are various networks with IPv6 nowadays 
> (have a look a the Google and apnic statistic pages) and various 
> IPv6-only nets already exist. If it breaks, people will notice it.
>
> > I blame myself, and the community. We were here when IPv6 happened, 
> > and we cocked it up. This pretend dual-stack environment, where IPv6 
> > actually isn't business critical, wasn't supposed to happen. Time 
> > gap between IPv4 RFC and IPv6 RFC is smaller than the time gap 
> > between
> > IPv6 RFC and today, we've had longer tenure of migration to IPv6 
> > than we have IPv4 only.
>
> Because the amount of networks and machines massively increased during 
> that time.
>
> > There is no other way to frame this than as an abject failure. And 
> > trying to paint this in some other light, just removes any traction 
> > to actually solve this.
>
> Is there any good alternative - or even a concept?
> I've never seen that and every time people come up with that, they 
> suggest "IPv4 with a larger address space", but don't understand that 
> such a thing cannot be implemented alongside with current IPv4, so no 
> migration plan at all.
>
> > Actual solution will need some kind of voluntary or involuntary 
> > action by oligarchic big tech companies, so that they'd have a 
> > future date upon which they stop serving IPv4, which will create 
> > motivation for downstreams to adopt IPv6.
>
> Some small sites already did that: https://konecipv4.cz/en/
>
> > Maybe someone could convince the FTC, FCC or DOJ that IPv4 is an 
> > antitrust issue they need to regulate. Which it absolutely is, it is 
> > an additional barrier of entry for many types of businesses favoring 
> > established large players over new entrants.
>
> IIRC I've read that certain US government contracts require IPv6 
> compatibility.
>
> Device which don't support it cannot be used.
>
> --
> Gruß
> Marco
>
> Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1762072564muell () cartoonies org 
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/MW
> 2EZMUNKCPPVESI2KILS7OTJKXKDGGQ/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/25SARHQYO6TDPQ4SYCZZILX32SM5TRFU/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/5BHAVZIGTRGVU2BI4NXZ6M7WVWJRTDEP/