> On Feb 21, 2024, at 08:46, Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen, I don't think these statements about IPv4 being obsolete help the > conversation, it is an opinion, and inflammatory.. While I get that > 'advocates' of IPv6 want to do whatever it takes to force a worldwide change, > the death of IPv4 has been heralded for almost 20 years.. but.. > > IPv4 is very much part of the current eco-system, and still very much a > business tool, and for some parts of the eco-system, still very much the > standard.
That this remains true is a failure of the market economy through allowing those organizations that have failed to deploy IPv6 capabilities to externalize the costs of that failure onto the rest of us. Obviously, the beneficiaries of that don’t see this as a failure, but that is the reality. IPv4 support comes at an ever increasing cost both in hardware and in the number of kludges we have to stack together to deliver an increasingly degraded product. There’s a cost to maintaining those kludges and an even bigger cost in the assumptions those kludges have forced to be baked into existing products, not to mention the extent to which they have stifled innovation in the space. Unfortunately, many of those costs can’t be quantified and even the ones that can cannot be passed on to the those truly responsible for them. It may be inflammatory to tell uncomfortable or inconvenient truths, but that doesn’t make them any less true. > Let's see if we can make arguments less biased on the desire for change, and > more about real world conditions. I am sure that everyone has some opinions > or what 'is best'.. but these ideas change with time, and everyone has a > strong opinion on their own visions of the future. I am very much arguing real world conditions. I, for one, am tired of subsidizing the failures of other organizations. As such, I have little sympathy for them at this point. > Just saying, don't think your opinions on this topic are helpful in the > context of moving policy forward.. You are entitled to your opinion. Since I’m speaking in opposition of something being proposed, I guess you could say I don’t want that policy to move forward, so to that extent, not moving policy forward is in line with my objective. > (But feel free to keep up the IPv6 fight elsewhere) Oh, I do that too. 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.
