> What is really going on here Owen is the "keep IPv4 and dump IPv6" proponents > have successfully reframed the argument into whether or not it's > irresponsible to "hang on to unused IPv4" And I am afraid you have fallen > into that trap. If they can get you down that rabbithole and making that > argument then they win.
Nah… I’m hanging on to my used IPv4, but they’re arguing that it’s irresponsible for me to do that and I’m saying no. > In the US the anti-abortion people are expert at this trick. And what they > do is just as invalid as your question on whether or not it is > irresponsible for you to use NAT va IPv4. Wasn’t my question. Was my restating someone else’s argument, but understood. > You got "punked" in the debate I'm afraid. Not so much… Just willing to entertain all sides and see where things land. > If people spent a tenth of the effort deploying IPv6 as they do fighting > over whether or not so and so should give up some IPv4 or whether or not > IPv4 should be leased or not leased, then nobody would be using IPv4 at all > by now and the IPv4 debate would be a moot issue. That was, indeed, kind of my point the whole time. Owen _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
