Mark, I really enjoyed your professional remarks for the years and your deep and intrinsic mind, but it seems that now it is not a time to discuss the issue that ipv4 is scarce resource :)
My opinion that IPv6 was done in the worst manner and we should simply recognize that we have no other way to satisfy industry needs in such short time. Nothing personal - as a lot of my friends spent significant part of their life on it. Dima On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, Daniel Karrenberg > w > rites: >> >> On 02.08.2012, at 22:41, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >>> ... That depends on whether the registry in question is dealing with a >>> scarce resource or a plentiful one. Having two registries handing out >>> IPv4 addresses at this point would be very very bad. Having more than >>> one place you can get an IPv6 from would not worry me at all. ... >> >> IPv4 addresses used to be regarded as non-scarce not so long ago. > > I don't know what planet you have been living on but it was clear > IPv4 addresses were a scarce resource 2+ decades ago longer than > some IETF attendees have been alive. IPv6 was started because they > were a scarce resource that would run out in the foreseeable future. > > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
