Perhaps the clear future is to stay on a waiting-list for nonexistent
IPv4 addresses and continue to increase all the CGNAT related issues and
raise tensions on these forums for example.
Sincerely, in my view there is way too much political correctness to
leave people comfortableto implement IPv6 whenever they like, even if it
takes another 20 years for them to 'feel the need'.
Yes, people are kings of their networks and still may choose when they
want to deploy IPv6, however inside this political correctness many
forget that *no organization exists alone in the Internet Business*.
When some refuses to accept IPv6 as a natural evolution of this business
they worse the problem to everybody else, and these others have the
right to penalize these who as worsting everybody else's problem. Yes
they can still exist in the internet, but without a commitment they will
remain where they decided to stay: in the past.
At minimal to say believing IPv6 is not the solution for IPv4 exhaustion
and hoping for 'something else' at this stage in my view is similar to
what the flat earth movement preaches.
Fernando
On 23/10/2020 01:21, Michael Peddemors wrote:
On 2020-10-22 8:35 a.m., [email protected] wrote:
It is wrong to give this space to those who are making no effort to
move to IPv6, which is the clear future of the Internet.
Oh, I am going to be called a troll for this..
But seriously? First of all there are those who have no business need
to move to IPv6, where IPv4 is all they ever will need, so you can
understand that it will be low on their priority list....
And (wait for it) .. what emperical evidence do we have that IPv6 is
the clear future of the internet.. after .. (how many years has this
been pushed?) .. all this time, it STILL is not universally adopted,
which in itself says it is NOT the 'clear future'..
Me, (okay, this is after a beer or two tonight) I was just having a
discussion with some people the other night, and we were discussing
the idea that a new protocol might even roll out at this rate before
IPv6 is universally adopted...
I think that while ARIN can be a proponent of moving to IPv6, it still
has a responsibility to listen to those who have no need for this.
The idea of penalizing IPv4 allocations, because they don't believe in
IPv6, seems .. well... I don't think it serves the community properly.
(BTW, I am NOT an IPv6 hater, but the we do need to allow for
differing opinions in order for ARIN to truly represent all stake
holders, lest we fragment the community)
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
