On Sunday September 25 2016 09:36, you wrote to me:
TL> IPv6 should be the dominant protocol by now. Too many companies at TL> various levels dragging their feet.
Indeed, IPv6 should have been the dominant protocol by now. Even more... read on...
MvV>> Indeed an insane move. They may not have a choice regarding MvV>> CGNAT, they may have run out of IPv4 address space, but MvV>> offerring it without IPv6 is suicide.
TL> I agree. Being forced to run CGN on IPv4 is an opportunity to offer TL> IPV6, perhaps DS-lite
Ik like the positive attitude of seeing it an an opportunity to start with IPv6, but the reality is that they are too late. Not only should IPv6 have been the dominant protocol by now, it should have een the dominant protocol before the world ran out of IPv4 addresses.
Frankly I am a bit surprised that it took so long for ISP's being forced to go CGNAT. It was already five years ago that APNIC officially depleted its IPv4 addresses. I'd have expected ISPs to go CGNAT earlier. Apparently they still had some in store.
Anyway, the introduction of IPv6 should have started much earlier. It should have been introduced when there wree still plenty of IPv4 addresses, so that the bugs could have been ironed out properly before the panic emerged. Had it been done properly, we may never have needed CGNAT. The world should have been weened off IPv4 and IPv6 only might have been acceptable by now.
Sadly us Fidonetters aren't doing much better. The list hoovers about 40 nodes. We are not doing significantly better that the global average. I wonder what happened to that pioneer spirit. I see sysops investing time and energy in reviving once popular BBS software, that now is abondware. I wonder why. Why not spend the time and energy to invest in the future.
We have the technology, IPv6 capable software is available for Fidonet. Tunnels are available for those who's ISP does not provide native IPv6.
We can do it...
TL> Not helped by borked IPv6 configuration on some websites. Just last TL> week, I encountered an Australian government website that doesn't work TL> on IPv6. There is an AAAA record, but their configuration is borked TL> on IPv6 and it errors out with a redirect error. I was able to get on TL> using IPv4 (disabled IPv6 in Firefox), and after doing what I needed TL> to do, I left them some feedback pointing out the issue.
That's what I meant when I said IPv6 should have been introduced much earlier. So that by now all those child diseases would have gone.
