Owen DeLong wrote:
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.
Certainly, if we continue to waste effort that is better spent deploying IPv6
on bandaids and hacks to make v4 last just a little longer, we will continue to
fail and further delay IPv6 reaching a level of deployment that allows us to
start turning down IPv4 and beginning to recognize the cost savings that come
from moving forward.
How are we to ever find out who is right if that never happens? That alone is
enough reason for me.
The problem is that we’re not talking about parallel experiments. We’re talking
about an optional activity which will inherently pull resources away from a
necessary activity, thus delaying the necessary activity and becoming somewhat
of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence I oppose this wasteful experiment in favor
of doing what we all know eventually needs to be done.
I dont know what it will take to paint this nonsensical argument as any
more patently ridiculous than has already been done. It bears no
relationship to actual reality.
However, hypothetically, lets say thats exactly how it works.
Too Bad. You had your chance to deploy IPv6 before the pain and now you
must tend to both protocols.
Joe
