Re: IPv4 flag day

[Douglas Fischer via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

In addition to continuing to strongly pressure developers and applications
that are still stuck with legacy protocols.

In the Telco scope, what we could promote are things that are already
within our reach, such as:

IXPs eliminating the IPv4 LAN and maintaining only the IPv6 LAN, and making
everything happen exclusively using RFC8950 (RFC5549).

The same line in the Transit Provider scenario. Encouraging the link
network to be exclusively IPv6 using RFC8950 (RFC5549).

Em ter., 16 de jun. de 2026 às 09:37, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdouglas () gmail com> escreveu:

> The goal isn't to shut down IPv4, it's to let it starve to death.
> I didn't receive a document saying I should disable NETBEUI or IPX/SPX on
> my networks.
>
> IMHO
> I believe the focus of the effort should be on causing technical
> discomfort and embarrassment to those who maintain applications that are
> not yet capable of providing interoperability between clients that are on
> IPv4 and clients that are on IPv6.
>
> And in my view, the biggest villains in this case are the gaming platforms.
>
> Making these guys abandon the exclusively legacy methodology and focus on
> IPv6 is one of the keys that will begin to remove the last shackles to
> allow the end user to be on IPv6 only and not even know that IPv4 and IPv6
> exist.
>
>
> Em ter., 16 de jun. de 2026 às 03:34, Saku Ytti via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org> escreveu:
>
> > 'ello,
> >
> > I've babbled about this before, but apparently I'm babbling about it
> > again.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I don't see any future where organically IPv4 dies in such a way that
> > people offering services on the Internet are comfortable offering them
> > IPv6 only, the long tail will be too expensive to ignore.
> >
> > Dual stack adds complexity, cost, reduces quality and security. It is
> > also blatantly an antitrust issue, as established players with access
> > to large allocations can outcompete new entrants with no IPv4
> > allocation.
> >
> > In practice I'm thinking about something where relevant players all
> > sign an agreement to drop ipv4 at their edge in e..g 15 or 20 years.
> > Creating clear business justification for people to implement IPv6 in
> > their next upgrade cycle. Today if I'm an edge with the IPv4 addresses
> > I need, I wouldn't consider IPv6, because that's just a cost to me,
> > with no upside.
> > I know I could get some transit shops to sign off on such an
> > agreement, but no one cares about transit, this obviously doesn't work
> > without Amazon and Facebook et.al.
> >
> > Sure edges still can have IPv4, but that's like edge having IPX or
> > AppleTalk, it'll be highly local issue, no one expects to reach
> > anywhere with it, and anticipates to translate 100% of external
> > traffic.
> >
> > Amazon? Facebook? Google? Microsoft? Any appetite?
> >
> > --
> >   ++ytti
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/E2XOPUM5UDSQYLXJKBAL57LDBASU72M4/
>
>
> --
> Douglas Fernando Fischer
> Engº de Controle e Automação


-- 
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº de Controle e Automação
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/6FUDILTOW3FNNKWOZOBG4Y7QAWUTBAHO/