> On Sep 13, 2021, at 15:43 , Joe Maimon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:54 , Joe Maimon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Strongly disagree in yet additional government intrusion into private >>> market, the individuals right to choose what to build sell or purchase is >>> part of your freedom to live how you choose. Dont take it for granted. >> I’m confused… If the government stops buying from suppliers who don’t meet >> this criteria, how is that intrusion into a private market? >> >> The individual (or company) in question is still absolutely free to do as >> they wish. However, they forego receiving government business if they choose >> not to implement IPv6. >> >> That’s capitalism at its finest. The government wants a certain behavior and >> it votes with its dollars to patronize the companies that behave accordingly? >> >> Isn’t this how things are supposed to work? > > Apparently I misread what you wrote to apply to the broad public. As pointed > out, government contracts do already contain these sort of provisions and we > have seen their effectiveness.
Nope… I was suggesting USG stop buying anything from any company with a website not usable from a v6 only network. > >>> Not opposed. However, in reality, this just becomes a checkbox the likes we >>> have seen before, and it costs money that might have been better spent >>> elsewhere, like in actually delivering broadband. >> Well… All the USF money poured into that so far hasn’t managed it, so we >> might as well have it provide something useful, like IPv6 progress in the >> process. >> >>> There is only one effective and acceptable approach to deploying IPv6 any >>> quicker than is happening now, and that is to focus on providing tangible >>> benefit to its users now, today. >> I’m already getting tangible benefit from having IPv6 today. Since that’s >> already being done, I think you’ll have to come up with a better answer. >> >> Owen > > I am curious, what exactly is the benefit to you, who has plenty of IPv4 (not > that I mind)? Other than the educational, the emotional or resume padding? I know that it’s common place these days to simply expect that everyone is out for themselves. Believe it or not, I actually want to see the internet progress and move beyond IPv4. I want to see the end-to-end model restored and see a world where the applications that are possible in that environment can come to fruition. > Which protocols or network destination are now communicable in any improved > fashion? Well, that’s the rub, right… As long as we are shackled by these bonds to a world of consumer NAT and address shortage, we’ll never see the improvements that are possible in an unshackled world. That’s why I want to see the shackles removed and the net opened to new possibilities. Unfortunately, there’s a remarkably vocal resistance to freedom among the oppressed that I have difficulty understanding. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
