This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
evyncke at cisco.com
Sun Oct 6 00:09:34 CEST 2019
Hello Gert, In-line On 05/10/2019, 20:19, "ipv6-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of gert at space.net> wrote: ----%<----%<------ 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... Until the police declares that 1000:1 oversubscription (combine with encryption everywhere) makes their job impossible and enforce some limitation. 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. And, the above (combined with uneducated ISP blocking IPv6 extension headers) is even more frightening.... it forces the Internet in the hands of a couple of cloud providers and is a real ossification of the Internet ----%<--------%<----------- Now, I do not have any solution -éric
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]