So your answer is do nothing because we should be spending the time on v6? There are a lot of barriers to v6, and there is no logical reason why this range of v4 subnets wasn’t made available to the world a decade (or two) ago. The next best time to do it is now though.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:21 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > > > What struck me is how NONE of those challenges in doing IPv6 deployment > > in the field had anything to do with fending off attempts to make IPv4 > > better. > > > > Let me say that again. Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take > > over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time > > improving IPv4 standards instead". > > > I’ll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data available. > True, none > of the reasons directly claim “IPv6 isn’t good enough because we did X for > v4 > instead”, yet all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient > resources to > make this the top priority.” which means that any resources being > dedicated to > improving (or more accurately further band-aiding) IPv4 are effectively > being > taken away from solving the problems that exist with IPv6 pretty much by > definition. > > So I will stand by my statement that if we put half of the effort that has > been > spent discussing these 16 relatively useless /8s that would not > significantly > improve the lifespan of IPv4 on resolving the barriers to deployment of > IPv6, > we would actually have a lot less need for IPv4 and a lot more deployment > of > IPv6 already. > > Owen > >
