Re: IPv4 flag day

[Dorn Hetzel via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Don't you mean out of ~4,000,000,000 ? [4,294,967,296] ?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 6:33 PM Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com>
wrote:

> Honestly, I'm surprised this hasn't been proposed or being worked on yet,
> because at some point (probably in my lifetime) it may become necessary.
> Though, AFAIK, we're still sub 500,000 for issued ASN range, out of the
> 4,000,000 so possible.
>
> But hobby ASNs and other usages are on the rise..... in some communities I
> see a lot of requests for help getting set up there, and most of those
> users are v6 only for obvious reasons....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dorn Hetzel via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 8:29 PM
> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
> Cc: Arie Vayner <ariev () vayner net>; Dorn Hetzel <dorn () hetzel org>
> Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day
>
> Sure, have every hotdog cart run BGP, pretty soon we'll need 64 bit AS
> numbers :)
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 6:29 PM Mike Hammett via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> > Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >
> > Midwest Internet Exchange
> >
> > The Brothers WISP
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "sronan--- via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>
> > To: nanog () lists nanog org
> > Cc: "Arie Vayner" <ariev () vayner net>, nanog () lists nanog org,
> > sronan () ronan-online com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 4:24:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day
> >
> > Sorry, but this is NOT a significant use case, and I wouldn’t buy
> > service from any Internet provider who doesn’t support BGP.
> >
> > But frankly you could implement this exact same solution with IPv6
> > without BGP anyway.
> >
> > Shane
> >
> > > On Jun 16, 2026, at 5:21 PM, Arie Vayner via NANOG <
> > nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > There is also a significant set of use cases that currently work
> > > better,
> > or
> > > at least more easily, with NAT.
> > >
> > > The most common example is small branch sites with dual ISP uplinks.
> > There
> > > are a vast number of these sites deployed using two small
> > provider-assigned
> > > (PA) NAT pools. This setup is widely understood, simple to
> > > implement, and reliable.
> > >
> > > Moving these sites to IPv6 via BGP is often not feasible. Many ISP
> > circuits
> > > do not support BGP, and the teams operating these sites lack the
> > > time to navigate that complexity. Furthermore, other IPv6
> > > dual-homing options
> > often
> > > don't align with enterprise requirements or expected complexity (or
> > really
> > > simplicity) levels.
> > >
> > > In my view, this is a core reason why IPv6 adoption remains low in
> > > the enterprise space: it requires fundamental paradigm shifts rather
> > > than a simple protocol update.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Arie
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026, 8:10 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG <
> > nanog () lists nanog org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Is NAT still such a severe problem that we needed a different
> protocol?
> > > > > Ask 1000 NANOG engineers, get 1000 different answers. In practice,
> no.
> > > > > IPv4 still works.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are also plenty of well established things that NAT causes
> > problems
> > > > for, along with less than desirable protocol and standardization
> > > > choices that have been made because of the existence of NAT.
> > > >
> > > > We've gotten really good at engineering ways to disguise these
> > > > issues so users don't notice them. On one had that's good because
> > > > user/application experiences are better, on the other hand it sucks
> > > > because people think
> > a
> > > > non-visible problem isn't a problem anymore.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:53 AM Brian Knight via NANOG <
> > > > nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2026-06-16 01:33, Saku Ytti via NANOG wrote:
> > > > > > Does anyone feel responsibility for the dual stack mess we've
> created?
> > > > > > It wasn't here when we found the Internet, and we're going to
> > > > > > leave it here after we leave, does not really jive with the whole
> > > > > > leave campground cleaner than found it ethos.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was the most comprehensive solution for the NAT problem. But
> > > > > NAT became the accepted way we connect to the Internet.
> > > > >
> > > > > World + dog knows how to connect to it, troubleshoot it, look at
> > > > > NAT tables on their edge firewall or router.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is NAT still such a severe problem that we needed a different
> protocol?
> > > > > Ask 1000 NANOG engineers, get 1000 different answers. In practice,
> no.
> > > > > IPv4 still works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Economics are a slightly different story, but so far, IPv4 space
> > > > > isn't prohibitively expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Brian
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > NANOG mailing list
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/QE
> > OMV5GN4WLNYOH7QZWYP5E26ZJ5AO57/
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > NANOG mailing list
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/AB
> > XC2CERUCF64YKCK5YXOJTLPRJSTPBV/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/BZ
> > 6LKHSDLZ3WOR4GW2B544OKLSHFBIIG/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/HZ
> > LJOUK3CNBHHHS2KLRVNETDA3U7DNCZ/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/W3
> > CJ2XL3YV6T5CI2HUOHBMZITT6NH22A/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/EQX7WFQ5NGNZ5FEOFU5RZPNSTDWOU27Y/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/LYTYOEEBMSKIIK7DZLZQKSVDTH33PFS7/