My answer is to work on resolving the barriers to v6 instead of wasting time on this, yes.
Owen > On Mar 16, 2022, at 11:12 , David Bass <davidbass...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > <mailto: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 >
