I am not checking my emails until Nov 14th, 2025. Thanks, Samaneh On Nov 6, 2025, at 1:03 PM, nanog--- via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
request a static prefix from your ISP On 5 November 2025 14:12:30 CET, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: Try to propagate the ISP prefix over a few hops of the routed network (on the site of some business). DHCPv6-PD or whatever. Then read the documents of the closed IETF WG "Home Networking" to understand what a mess is it. Yes, a small number of businesses have a shortage inside 10/8. But even for them, IPv6 would be a much bigger challenge. The majority of businesses have no problem with a 10/8 size. I have serious doubt there will be another protocol that replaces it. I do not believe too. Businesses would just stay on IPv4. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 14:11 To: [email protected] Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales) Am 05.11.2025 um 06:26:39 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard: There is a big misunderstanding about IPv6 on mobile (and the majority of residential broadband): it is NOT an IPv6. The primary difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the first hop: IPv6 has enormous flexibility and complexity here. Residential customers get PPP or even a direct ethernet connection. Then DHCPv6-PD is being used. Works fine and is being used by millions of people here in Germany. Business connections might get different protocols, but they are set up by people who should know how to set them up. But MBB/FBB completely disabled all IPv6 features on the first hop; Explain that further. it is possible because L2 P2P connection is emulated here (PPP or GTP tunnel). Such castrated IPv6 works perfectly fine (for residential/mobile) because it is even simpler than IPv4. The big address space of IPv6 (64 bits) is a value here. There is no possibility of canceling the "subnet" concept for business. It is available in IPv6 too. RFCs say they should get a /48, so 2^16 subnets. In case they need more, they can request more from the RIR. I've seen large enterprises where 10.0.0.0/8 isn't enough. And their NAT crap is just a PITA for everyone who has to do with their network. IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses. It is less complex than IPv4 subnetting, especially when partial NAT is involved. If network engineers can't handle IPv6 subnetting, they should apply for another job. Hence, IPv4 will stay for business forever. I have serious doubt it will stay when IPv6 will be mandatory (remember how fast businesses implemented TLS or DKIM when the big players requested that?). IMHO: the world would finally accept: "reduced IPv6 for subscribers, IPv4 for businesses". IMHO: the full IPv6 (it was called "Next Generation" 3 decades ago) has no future. Eduard I have serious doubt there will be another protocol that replaces it. IPv6 is now already present in most protocol stacks (I know that devices without it exist), at carrier networks and at many ISPs. A new protocol needs time to be implemented and shares the same problem as IPv4: There are people who do not want it and there is no "IPv4 with longer addresses that is backward compatible" (and cannot be). -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to [email protected] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VLR65KJZ3GB6REMTBPP7DAOQ5G2XP5OU/__;!!PtGJab4!-gj96lHsEZaraiJ8WLfsWRt87_Em0il7B2sFVTScickVbYE0cPooxUlei52RIpXkmisQ1EfiydyI4kSM9Yb10qfySdY$ [lists[.]nanog[.]org] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XVCSPKIVBAGT5DGWRSCNZVKJGCL3CDIS/__;!!PtGJab4!-gj96lHsEZaraiJ8WLfsWRt87_Em0il7B2sFVTScickVbYE0cPooxUlei52RIpXkmisQ1EfiydyI4kSM9Yb1is5oYzk$ [lists[.]nanog[.]org] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/CIIY6MKPDRULZPPJWM5SHVZNCIHSSASD/
