Re: IPv4 flag day

[Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

I wasn't advocating that they do, but to Shane's message about not buying Internet from anyone who doesn't support BGP. 
If it's not in the customer's requirements, then whether they do it or not is irrelevant.



----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher () beecher cc>
To: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: "Arie Vayner" <ariev () vayner net>, "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 7:28:54 AM
Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day




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/EZQIZ3ROBN64YJ4SJSFH7UIGDAGPA462/