Re: IPv4 flag day

[Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP.


Nor should they. Stop trying to over-engineer solutions. Not everything
needs hyper performant connectivity with sub second failover.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 8:29 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/QEOMV5GN4WLNYOH7QZWYP5E26ZJ5AO57/
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/ABXC2CERUCF64YKCK5YXOJTLPRJSTPBV/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/BZ6LKHSDLZ3WOR4GW2B544OKLSHFBIIG/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/HZLJOUK3CNBHHHS2KLRVNETDA3U7DNCZ/
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/W3CJ2XL3YV6T5CI2HUOHBMZITT6NH22A/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/IM6577BF32AI2YXEICBG6OPVSVKYOLKA/