Much of India operates this way today. Owen
> On Nov 21, 2022, at 15:06, Rubens Kuhl <rube...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (forwarded to break thread since this is a different topic) > What's the group's current thought on emergence or prevalence of > IPv6-only hosts ? Will they exist soon, in some time or in a very long > time? > > > Rubens > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <b...@theworld.com> > Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:02 PM > Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC > To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > > > > My suggestion is ignore anyone who says it would be too difficult to > get people to adopt a change or take too long. Someone always says > that, a reasonable riposte is "what would be a reasonable number of > people / years?" Surely they must have some numbers in mind, no? > > We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with > very limited success so perhaps that's a pretty time to shoot for, for > example. Anything less than 30 years would be an improvement. > > I suppose some might leap on that as evidence of the above cautions > but it's really not. It's just being argumentative. It feels like a > reasonable argument pattern but it's not because it ignores why that > previous attempt mostly failed and tries to equate them (we failed for > 30 years so therefore you will fail for 30 years???) > > That said, what's needed is a working demo preferably within both a > simulation environment and live because the devil is always in the > details and the only way to vet that is by testing working code. > > A mere proposal is of some value, one can glance at it and try to spot > any fatal flaws for example. But it's only a tiny step along the path. > > However, that it might take a while to become adopted is, to me, like > saying forget trying to mitigate climate change, it'll take decades > and require hundreds of govts, thousands of industries, and billions > of people to change their behavior which is all true but hardly an > argument as to why not to try. > > Aside: A pretty good rule of thumb with replacement technologies is > that something has to be 10x better than what it replaces to get wide > adoption. Ok maybe not 10, that's a figure of speech, but a lot, and > certainly not introduce impediments to its own adoption and use. > > On November 21, 2022 at 12:00 beec...@beecher.cc (Tom Beecher) wrote: >> As stated in Subsection 4.A. of the "Revamp The >> Internet" whitepaper, all need be done is "Simply disable the existing >> software codes that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock." >> >> >> Some friendly feedback. The phrase "all that needs to be done" , is >> exceptionally reductive, and in the case of internet standards, also always >> going to end up being wrong. >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:19 AM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Mark: >> >> 0) Thanks for the clarification. I understand. A short message through >> the cyberspace, especially between parties who have never met can be >> easily skewed. I am glad that I asked you, instead of taking it >> negatively without raising my hand. >> >> 1) "...I'd, rather, expend those resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c. ... >> ": Since EzIP is still being further refined, it may not be clear in our >> documentation about how much work is required to get the IPv4 out of the >> current depletion mode. As stated in Subsection 4.A. of the "Revamp The >> Internet" whitepaper, all need be done is "Simply disable the existing >> software codes that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock." >> In fact, we have found examples that this means commenting out one line >> code that searches for then discards packets with 240/4 addressing. It >> seems to me that there is no easier task than this. >> >> https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf >> >> Regards, >> >> Abe (2022-11-21 11:18 EST) >> >> >> >> On 2022-11-20 23:56, Mark Tinka wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/20/22 19:02, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Mark: >>>> >>>> 0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion. >>>> >>>> 1) The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of >>>> an in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do >>>> not rely on any protocol development, IETF does not need be involved. >>>> Especially, its first step of disabling one line of existing >>>> networking program code empowers any party to begin deploying EzIP >>>> stealthily for mitigating the IPv4 address pool depletion issues. >>>> Note that EzIP is a generic solution applicable to everyone, not >>>> limited to Africa. >>>> >>>> 2) Of course, constructive criticism is always appreciated. However, >>>> unspecific comments that confuse and distract the readers only >>>> provide dis-service to those disadvantaged population who are >>>> enduring the handicaps of being the late-comers to the Internet. >>> >>> My comment was not directed at you. Sorry. >>> >>> I have nothing against the EzIP proposal. It just does not add any >>> real value in solving the IPv4 depletion problem for the amount of >>> effort required to implement it, in my view. I'd, rather, expend those >>> resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c. >>> >>> Mark. >>> >> >> >> -- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com >> > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
