[ShadowAce]

[taxcontrol]

In my opinion, 127/8 should have never been used for loopback. 255.255.255.255 is a local network broadcast address. By designating 255.255.255.254 as the local host broadcast, a lot of address space could have been saved.

But too late now.

Time to move to IPv6

[SecondAmendment]

Bye bye docker and K8 !!!!

[JamesP81]

The move to IPv6 wouldn’t be so damned glacial if they had made it backward compatible with IPv4. Choosing not to implement backward compatibility was a serious mistake.

I won’t even bother expending the effort to operate two entirely separate network stacks inside my networks until I have to. Until then, there is zero benefit for me trying to move.

[bigbob]

Just switch to IPv6, Cisco needs the money.

[Myrddin]

As a developer, having to support IPv4 and IPv6 is a pain in the butt. It's an even bigger pain from a network security perspective. Vendors are still way behind the curve on IPv6 implementations. It's a risky proposition to use it, then find that somewhere along the path from source to target there is an incompatibility. IPv4 is mature and works well. A good firewall with NAT on the LAN side can handle a lot of hosts with just one unique IPv4 facing the network.

My Linux and Windows boxes have dual stacks. Ditto for the house router. I don't expect to push IPv6 traffic out the WAN interface as I have no certainly the ISP or network beyond will work. The managed switches date back to IPv4 only. They support VLAN just fine. There is not a lot of incentive to upgrade to a managed switch that handled IPv6.