Subj : New rule To : Nick Boel From : Michiel van der Vlist Date : Sun Jul 27 2025 12:00 pm Hello Nick, On Saturday July 26 2025 09:38, you wrote to me: NB> And you always will run into those walls. This is somewhat comparable NB> to sysops that still wish to run BBS software from the 80s/90s, that NB> don't and will never support things like a TZUTC kludge. It's NB> ultimately their choice. The effect of not supporting TZUTC is less than the effect of not supporting IPv6 will be. And, yes it is ultimately the choice of the sysop. >> For those confronted with te reality of IPv4 exhaustion and the >> shattered brick wall of denial, there is brick wall #2. Hang on to >> IPv4 no matter what tricks it needs. NB> Some people don't like change, until they're ultimately forced to do NB> so. If IPv4 is ever fully phased out, my guess is Fidonet will lose NB> another big chunk of nodelisted sysops. Much like when darktech.org NB> and no-ip.com were abandoned, but on a bigger scale. Possibly. Read on... IPv4 will stay around for quit some time. It won't go out with a bang, it will just fade away. Like IPX/SPX. For all intents and purposes IPX/SPX is gone, or at least it does not play a major role any more. It is gone from my house, but surely it will still be in use somewhere. Something similar will probably happen to IPv4. In the long run there is no business case for keeping both protocols. So when "everyone" has IPv6 the benefits of maintaining support for IPv4 along with IPv6 will eventually no longer outweigh the cost and affort so manufacturers and providers will eventually stop support for IPv4. Like support for IPX/SPX has stopped. That will not happen tomorow. I may or may not live to see it. What will happen in the foreseaable future and is already happening in sone parts of the Internet is that providers no longer offer a globally routable IPv4 address to their customers, they will have to make do with CGNAT. >> IPv4 exhaustion may not be a serious problem for the incumbents in >> parts of the world where IPv4 was historically issued as if it >> would last forever. NB> I imagine some of these bigger ISPs, mine included (Spectrum), bought NB> up a ton of IPv4 blocks because they saw all of this coming and could NB> afford to take it all away from smaller ISPs for themselves. Heck, NB> there may even be enough IPv4 addresses at these large ISPs to go NB> around still, but they are hoarding them for their own (current and NB> future) customers. Ever since the well of IPv4 fell dry, there has been a market for IPv4 adresses. And when demand exceeds supply, the price goes up. And with dynamic prices speculation and hoarding comes into play. But in the early days there was no level playing field. Some early major players were issued very large blocks of IPv4. And some have sold it what they did not need, some are still sitting on it. In the meantime the peak is history. Price for an IPv4 address has peaked at about $60 a couple of years ago. Now it is around $40. So some of the hoarders have fished behind the net alraedy. NB> While I don't follow the situation very much, nor do I have any NB> experience with it (I have native "dynamic that never changes unless I NB> change hardware" IPv4 that I have always had, as well as native NB> "dynamic that never changes unless I change hardware" IPv6), but do NB> you think these bigger ISPs rent out some IPv4 addresses to smaller NB> ISPs just so they can do said DSLite kind of setups? NB> Is this DSLite setup a bunch of private addresses not open to the NB> outside, that run off of one or a few public addresses so they NB> basically disable any incoming traffic so they can make more use of a NB> single IPv4 address? Full DUal Stack is a technology where IPv4 and IPv6 are on the same carrier as "equals" next to each other. DsLite is a technology where the main connection is IPv6 only and IPv4 is offered as a service via a 4in6 tunnel. DsLite is always combined with CGNAT. But CGNAT is also used in other settings. CGNAT stands for Carrier Grade NAT. A means to share IP addresses among many users. It is basically the same as the use of NAT in your home network, but the process takes place at the site of the provider. The range 100.64.0.0/10 has been set aside for the "private" side of the CGNAT network. But some providers also use 10.x.x.x or some other RFC 1918 range. The use of 100.64.0.0/10 avoids conflicts with local adresses of the user. Anyway, what is relevant to Fidonet is that with CGNAT the user no longer has a globally routable IPv4 adress for himself. He can no longer run a server. No server, no incoming calls. Accepting incoming calls is an essential part of running a Fidonet node. It is possible to run a Pvt node, but the network can not function without nodes capable of accepting incomng calls. Presently this affects only a handfull of nodes. But if this practise becomes more common, it may have a large impact on Fidonet and we may indeed see the numbers of nodes drop when IPv6 adoption does not rise in respons. Cheers, Michiel --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303 * Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555) .