In message <camdxq5mbe2dn9awxho-h-p8g3yqwbaak-rxr7uqmtac5pbt...@mail.gmail.com> Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This all seems silly to me. #IMHO, IPv4 policy should be geared only mostly >assuaging operators to get to v6. Total exhaustion is a part of that. If that's a goal, total IPv4 exhaustion could be legislated -today-. All five RIRs would simply have to agree to stop giving out any more IPv4 blocks. I haven't heard anybody except a for few dyed-in-the-wool IPv6 afficianadoes clamoring for quite such a draconian solution however. >Talking about v6 exhaustion is probably better suited for the IETF. Either >way, we'll all be dead if/when it happens... Speak for yourself! I have plans to still be here in 2050! (And I even hold out some vague hope that some encoding of myself will still be around in time to see humanity's construction of its first Dyson sphere.) More to the point, I do suspect that the argument that "we'll all be dead by then" was likely pretty much the same reasoning and argument used by the progenitors of IPv4 when they settled on 32 bits as being more than enough to outlive them. Needless to say, with 20/20 hindsight we now know that didn't quite work out as planned. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.