[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 10:31 PM Michel Py <
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

> Marc, long time no see indeed ;-)
>
> > Marc Blanchet wrote :
> > To me IPv6 is the only viable solution.
>
> To me IPv4 is the only viable solution until a replacement for IPv6 is
> found.
>
>

But what other solution do you see, a brand new protocol that takes another
x years for adoption, that will in far end still cause dual or better yet
triple stack deployment?

IPv4 will not be dead any time soon, this I think is clear to anyone
dealing in network deployment, but again it (should) also be clear to these
same people that to sustain and keep the anywhere-to-everywhere
connectivity the IPv6 is the only viable option.

To not be mistaken for me being on any of the "sides" for IPv6 or IPv4,
currently I depend heavily on IPv4, but in the meantime I also deploy IPv6
in a safe (for my taste and acceptance) fashion, that is testing is key,
should I conclude in my tests that a certain deployment doesn't work
perfectly I delay it if possible.

Again there is no perfect solution, we are just so used to doing things a
certain way that we do them subconsciously and don't even think about the
needed steps for certain things, where as when we deploy IPv6 for a certain
service it usually needs us to think about things to make everything work
right.

IMHO there should be more work put into replacing/extending SMTP than
thinking over IPv6, as most of the complaints I've seen were about IPv6
mail server deployment and problems with blacklists etc. "Fix SMTP" to
annihilate SPAM and these problems will disappear too.

Uros
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191006/4fca7ff3/attachment.html>