* Gert Doering ([email protected]) [191007 12:56]: > I take a bit of offense here. We did what we could to "protect the > newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is > not enough v4, what else could we have done?
Let me answer this from the newcomer's side: You did good and the policy is fine as it is. Some of us just adapted and implemented IPv6 rightaway, taking those breadcrumbs of v4 as fallback, while the dinosaurs kept whining about missing IPv6 support for their outdated windows 95 machines (which could be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic). We did this despite the fact that the old economy will use it's legacy ressources to keep us out of the business and those who couldn't afford to wait for the dinosaurs to die out are using lots of cash to ease their pain. Most newcomers COULD easily go v6-only and although there would be problems, they would be able to handle that while moving forward. That is ... IF those dinosaurs would move just a tiny bit and at least implemented a minimum of IPv6 on their public services and at least application proxies or nat64 for the rest of their cruft. But it's the same story as with climate change: The next generation doesn't have a voice in this game, but will pay for the greed of those who where lucky enough to be there for a long time when plenty of ressources where available and the same legacy people are now whining about the cost of change. Bjørn
