Hi, On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 06:52:25PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
As the feedback on (and off) this list has show there are several people agreeing with my arguments that further work on IPv6 is a waste of time and we need to prolong the live of IPv4 until we find a real successor. Maybe should also discuss if this successor should be defined by IETF or by a real standard body like the ITU.
There will not be anything else on the public Internet in our lifetime. Either it's "IPv6" (with a infinite heavy-tail of IPv4 inside enterprise networks, shielded via application gateways from the Internet anyway) or "IPv4 plus NAT". With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good enough anyway. End users want lots of TV channels, the big content networks are providing. Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS today, which is very NAT friendly. CGN in the eyeball ISP world can easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we have enough IPv4 for ever... Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever. But since the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal household anyway, it's lost anyway. I still think IPv6 is a more reasonable way forward, but I *expect* to make a shitload of money by fixing people's NAT4444 setups in the next decade... ("our multi-million dollar machines can no longer work because this network thingie broke, and we have neither config nor documentation, so can you please figure out which networks it's trying to connect to and make it work again, QUICKLY?") *sigh* 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