Update to BCP-38?

[fredbaker.ietf at gmail.com (Fred Baker)]

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 3, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Stephen Satchell <list at satchell.net> wrote:
> 
> On 10/3/19 8:42 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell <list at satchell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has been around for 25 years, and why
>>> is it taking so long for everyone to adopt it?"  I present as evidence
>>> the lack of a formally-released requirements RFC for IPv6.  It suggests
>>> that the "science" of IPv6 is not "settled" yet.  That puts the
>>> deployment of IPv6 in the category of "experiment" and not "production".
>> 
>> And, of course, we now have companies like T-Mobile and others
>> turning IPv4 off. If that's an experiment, wow.
> The cellular data industry appears to have embraced IPv6 in one form or
> another.  I would expect that the network engineers have done some work
> to keep IPv4 off their *internal* networks, but provide IPv4 access at
> the edge.  (Isn't a netblock within IPv6 intended to enable bridging to
> IPv4?)  The applications on the phon could be configured to search DNS
> for AAAA addresses first.

T-Mobile documented what they are doing at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877.

> My AT&T cell phone has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.  The IPv4 address
> is from my access point; the IPv6 address appears to be a public address.

So does my T-Mobile phone. It got the IPv4 address from my friendly neighborhood WiFi. 

> I would like to move to IPv6.  I just don't want to shoot myself in the
> foot, or cause trouble for other people, by being sure my edge router
> "follows all the rules."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191003/c506aea4/attachment.html>