Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.
I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can
survive on an hour of air for 20 years.
240/4 is way more effort than its proponents want to believe and even if it
were reclassified effectively as GUA, it doesn’t buy all that much life for
IPv4.
I think it should be reclassified from never going to be used into some
part of the internet might actually do something with it. Its important
that happens now, better late then never. Whether its GUA or not or a
mix of whatever, whether it buys months or years will depend greatly on
how its actually used if it is ever used.
You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be
wrong. IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions,
but the same ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort
asked from the unwilling is to support cutting the red tape frustrating
the willing. A hearty round of knock yourself out from the right folk in
the right place and time and we dont have to debate this particular
point ever again.
How are we to ever find out who is right if that never happens? That
alone is enough reason for me.
Personally, that means that although I have long disliked proposals that keep
moving to the left of the 128bit space, were I to believe it likely to increase
deployment and momentum I would champion it in my own limited fashion much as I
do 240/4.
Not sure what you mean by “moving to the left of the 128 bit space”.
That Ipv6 address allocation schemes and proposals tended to enlarge
over time, using up more bits heading from right to left.
We will obviously agree to disagree about 240/4 as we long have.
Owen
To the next time then.
Joe
