Re: Verison IPv6 -- I want to stick with IPv4 (was Re: ipv6: static ipv6 address with dynamic network address possible?)
On 2022-08-09, Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:15:15PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:04:13 +0000
>> Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:44:54AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not
>> > > announced any plans to discontinue it?
>> >
>> > That would be commercial suicide. At present you have to go out of
>> > your way to buy IPv6-only services.
>>
>> I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but T-Mobile
>> wireless is IPv6 only (and uses its own (now standardized as RFC 6877)
>> 464XLAT protocol to talk to IPv4 only networks:
>
> The context of the question was about a provider with existing end to end IPv4
> support hypothetically "discontinuing" IPv4 in favour of IPv6, instead of just
> introducing v6 along side. I did mention in a later email in this thread that
> some end user networks, especially mobile ones, are v6-only and use 464XLAT or
> similar to talk to the IPv4 Internet. But I was simplifying this for the poster
> who feared that they might no longer be able to use IPv4 at all. That's what I
> meant would be commercial suicide.
>
I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first
place, and that NAT was essentially designed to palliate this shortage.
I thought the latter was some sort of security measure.
If that's true, that is, and I've finally got it right now that it's
all being phased out.
:-)
Reply to: