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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to