<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>Am 03.10.19 um 17:11 schrieb Tim
Chown:</tt><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D10CB5FD-FD2B-4DF6-9CE1-A4842CA983A9@jisc.ac.uk">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 3 Oct 2019, at 16:02, Jens Link <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lists@quux.de"><lists@quux.de></a> wrote:
Tim Chown <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk"><Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk></a> writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">(Surprised we’re having this conversation in 2019, as the final fumes of
IPv4 address space disappear from Europe…)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
If you had told me 10 or even 5 years ago that I would be having the
conversation in 2019 I would have laughed at you. Now it's a very sad
situation. IPv4 has won.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>Well, the source for "new" IPv4 addresses is finally drying
out in the RIPE region, so I do not agree with "IPv4 has won"; it
lived an amazing life so far and is, since several years,
transitioning into it's evening of life. I wouldn't bet on a date
when IPv4 in the public Internet will be shut down, though. Not
even a decade, to be honest ...</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D10CB5FD-FD2B-4DF6-9CE1-A4842CA983A9@jisc.ac.uk">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I had a discussion over lunch about v6 yesterday (which is part of the
reason I started this today) and all I heard "but that is different
then IPv4. I don't like this!"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
There will always be a legacy tail. The dinosaurs can wallow in their swamp.</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>Some of those dinosauers are still in their diapers,
though.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D10CB5FD-FD2B-4DF6-9CE1-A4842CA983A9@jisc.ac.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Those who deploy v6 will benefit from it. Others will feel the heat of not moving; here in the UK it’s Sky and BT who have between them ~10M households on IPv6. That’s not failure.</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>No, it's a start; over here in Germany, most mobile
operators give you RFC6890 or RFC1918 addresses, still. Cable
operators hand out DS (-Lite, mostly) for consumers, (semi-) fixed
IPv4 (no DS) for commercial clients. FritzVPN, the VPN solution of
popular CPE maker AVM, still fails completely with IPv6, both as
transport and as payload. All in all, it's more failure than
success (and even progress is fscking slow; Vodafone is allegedly
starting somethings like DS-lite on mobile these days, o2 on
mobiles uses public v6 a long time already — for VoLTE, but not
data). But then it's Germany, where anything IP is Neuland anyway.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D10CB5FD-FD2B-4DF6-9CE1-A4842CA983A9@jisc.ac.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">New communities will benefit. For example, the largest science experiments are now migrating to IPv6, e.g., CERN and WLCG is 70% there, SKA will use it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt>But will they go the whole way, i. e. make their stuff
accessible from the outside, including informational webservers
and other infrastructure (DNS, MX), v6-only? Until much used
resources go v6-only, there's no chance in hell that "[o]thers
will feel the heat of not moving", as everyone still makes
everything available via v4.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE
NCC's IPv4 pool will have run dry by then anyway?</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><span class="description"><br>
<br>
</span></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><span class="description">Am 03.10.19 um 13:11 schrieb Joao
Luis Silva Damas:<br class="">
</span></tt>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05995D8D-11E0-4BB4-9098-78A357A8098E@bondis.org">
<div><tt>On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:58, Uros Gaber <</tt><tt><a
href="mailto:uros@ub330.net" class="">uros@ub330.net</a></tt><tt>>
wrote:</tt>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><tt><br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</tt>
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class=""><tt>Hi Jens,</tt></div>
<div class=""><tt><br class="">
</tt></div>
<div class=""><tt>Wow, first I had to look at today's
date, I thought this was a April Fools joke mail.</tt></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><tt><br class="">
</tt></div>
<tt>Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I
expected if I instinctively expanded the name to that of
someone I know, like the wg co-chair or so.</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<tt>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
Well, off-topic, but more noteworthy, the RIPE NCC mailservers
are, as of today, still running Exim 4.92.2, remotely exploitable
according to CVE-2019-16928.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt><tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
</tt>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>Am 03.10.19 um 12:34 schrieb Jens
Link:</tt><tt><br>
</tt>
</div>
<tt>
</tt>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:871rvuw21f.fsf@quux.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi,
after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
not work.</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>According to the mailing list archive, "[t]</tt><tt><span
class="description">he IPv6 Working Group is for anyone with an
interest in the next generation Internet Protocol. The
activities of the WG include education and outreach, sharing
deployment experiences and discussing and fixing operational
issues". So, Jens shared his IPv6 deployment experiences ("isn't
happening"), maybe there's something the IPv6 WG can do to
enforce IPv6 deployment? BTW, at least in terms of availability
v6 is the current, v4 the legacy Internet Protocol, maybe that
wording should be updated?<br>
<br>
</span></tt><tt>Regards,</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>-kai</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt>
</body>
</html>