>>106942758
>IPv6 doesn't exclude nor preclude IPv4 stop implying
Mate I literally said you could do both but asked why you'd bother if one of them did enough for your use case. Stop tilting at windmills.
>So did ATM and Frame Relay. Guess which protocols just werked but sucked and so were replaced?
IPv4 actually provided usability benefits over those ancient techs.
>IPv4 will never be replaced
We agree on that.
>you know what just werks substantially better than IPv4? IPv6.
If you have equipment that supports it, and that's the problem. Most applications don't care overly much about what v6 does better, so they're largely synonymous, except that half the stuff out there can't use one of them. We've piled enough bullshit on top of v4, that v6 doesn't really "do" much that's special feature wise. It does things better, but again, if that doesn't matter to your use case, why care?
>You have no clue what the point of MPLS is in transport networks.
I understand MPLS. I also understand that it has zero relevance outside of large scale stuff where you're running semi-sane equipment.
> MPLS will never leave transport networks or any large scale network in any of its various forms (SR, SRv6, static, LDP, whatever).
I never said MPLS was going away, but it's ridiculous to claim that it's the panacea that it was marketed as in the early 2000s. Large portions of stuff that was hyped up as going to the realm of MLPS in 2005 simply didn't, and there have been regressions in adoption in a variety of use cases because hardware got better or because newer protocols do specific tasks better.
Honestly, it sounds like we largely agree on stuff, but I'm far less bothered by all the legacy IPv4 equipment. I'd love to see it all magically get replaced with IPv6 stuff and for things to actually follow standards, but we don't live in that world. I see no reason to be perturbed by that.
I'm out of this conversation for now. Have a pleasant evening.