IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Thu, 28 July 2022 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726B5C13C21A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 02:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-wdWQvI9yVb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 02:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper1-relay.space.net (gatekeeper1-relay.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:3:85::38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF05FC14F692 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 02:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1659000692; x=1690536692; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=nFRls/iaw8SIHEd2XypJ44XKc5XRjQtIXuvN8VyGe4M=; b=G9DQclrCZzxBoPie+OnlcMbXls4K2uzpGARpKDPjlsC4Oc3g3HRNGNQ6 W4zFRb5ck452i6jYGZ9v8BGsT3Jkg93vsunscePeiCVNuFAwoOyDea9yl l+vC2l4mN8jZYuTiuSnsXhTUMuxlXSgE6kHEjUdG8bhVxelBvWHiPx33D e48HbDlj8wKM88lCvYjTNGMaLZ6EqmHGsbhOrFDpmQSIkWlJGLrWH/iJG pxX3xJ1ZHnFUTn1snGEgO1DcU6Rghytk9HItqRRIpIeJ7FOODijTIReVI 5zUUAqSmP4CM5IB/at5kcb9kMBdbBrKa8/TaUYtm6jSaidtOWBSx1Btyp w==;
X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None
Received: from mobil.space.net ([195.30.115.67]) by gatekeeper1-relay.space.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Jul 2022 11:31:27 +0200
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B454202C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:31:26 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949F94105D; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:31:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 8CC79E0C9A; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:31:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:31:26 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YuJXbruluDmzF3RD@Space.Net>
References: <e4a35f0c-757a-aefa-c211-05b6015a4215@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e4a35f0c-757a-aefa-c211-05b6015a4215@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QA98Vo5UyRBEt0wijiN5ZNVwVLU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:31:37 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:51:43PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Following the ongoing discussion about "IPv6-only" and why sites are still IPv4-only, I have a question: Are we competitive?

This is a valid question, which I feel hard to answer for the general case.

It's not just IETF (I could say something about DHCPv6 and RA here), nor
OS vendors (insert remark about Android and DHCPv6), or router vendors
(insert comments about feature parity) - but the worst thing today seems
to be

 - application developers
 - appliance builders
   (spoke to two vendors of "low budget" GPS-to-NTP servers recently,
   both had no IPv6 support, which really doesn't make sense as it's
   likely "all Linux" inside...)

... so, if you happen to have a network full of devices that can do IPv6,
running applications that can do IPv6, running the network IPv6-only should
be much more cost efficient than having the hassles of triple-IPv4-NAT
and duplicate RFC1918 addresses...

If.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email