On 4/22/20 9:03 AM, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm quite aware of the IETF transition strategy. 20+ years in isn't apparent that it is working. The IETF cannot disable IPv4 from it's properties in the forseeable future. It is equally unforseeable when a client can communicate only IPv6 end to end.
Just because we don't know when IPv4 will be discontinued, doesn't mean that it won't be discontinued. I wasn't able to predict the end of BITNET either. If memory serves, that network was still growing (slowly) until it shut down almost overnight.
Anyway, the discussion wasn't about disabling IPv4, which we all know is very premature, but about enabling IPv6. It took longer than most of us hoped, but by now there's certainly enough global usage of IPv6 to utterly dismiss the notion that the transition was a failure.
The sorry reality is that the centralized network combined with the fact that a single IPv4 address is sufficient for a small country (with a port overloading NAT) there is no urgency to the transition.
Uh, no. Because there are a lot of services that cannot be run in the presence of NATs without also having servers in global address space willing to forward traffic. That has been understood for decades.
Also, the network is not centralized. That's not an accurate representation of the organization of the network either at the IP level or at the application level.
Keith
