[ btw, the $subject is broken. the ipv6only ssid is global ipv6 not nat64, which has its own ssid ] > The IETF network is always going to have enough IPv4 addresses for > every user. Hence, it is _never_ going to be better for IETF users to > use an IPv6-only network as/if the global net becomes mostly v6, this will change. or so we hope. > because the main feature of IPv6 is end-to-end i suspect most folk believe the main feature is gaurab's dictum, "96 more bits, no magic." and i suspect that ipv6 will be about as e2e as ipv4; maybe less so if things such as nat64 are the transition rather than dual stack. (yes, dual stack is not realistic given 2^32 is a bit less than 2^128 or even 2^64 or whatever. get in your time machine and tell that to the ipv6 architects back in 1990.) > if you are still v4-privileged, you have end-to-end with v4, unlike > the rest of the world. perhaps have a look & listen to philipp's talk at irtfopen99 https://youtu.be/JRneMj7LX8U?list=PLC86T-6ZTP5jdbiwi5ggLNnwLn1-r0M4h&t=637 it's a cgn tragedy out there, especially in mobile which rules most of the world. it would be interesting to know/measure what proportion of connections are actually e2e on v4 and v6. and i am not interested in measures on facebook, google, root servers, etc. i am a backbone kinda guy. the ipv6 statistic that finally impressed me was when the seattle internet exchange (about the 20th largest ix) crossed 10% ipv6 last month. but what we can affect is what we do in the ietf. and there are a whole lot of our siblings deliberately breaking e2e. randy