On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is > the only viable long-term solution. > > The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that > everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and gained time, it > is much best invested in continue the IPv6 deployment which is already going > on in this region and the rest of the world. > > It would not make sense, to throw away all the efforts that have been already > done with IPv6 and we should avoid confusing people. > > I just think that even this thread is a waste of time (and will not further > participate on it), time that can be employed in continue deploying IPv6.
Why are so many otherwise smart engineers so vulnerable to false dilemma style fallacies? There's no "either/or" here. It's not a zero sum game. If you don't see value in doing more with IPv4 then why don't you get out of the way of folks who do? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
