Apologies for the double-signature. This suffered from some over-editing because I was concerned someone might naively take what I said at face value instead of understanding the actual intent.
Andrew On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 3:17 AM Andrew Kirch <[email protected]> wrote: > Comrades, > > Antitrust? Flag days? These are the timid, vacillating measures of > right-opportunists who have not yet grasped our historical inevitability. > > 32-bit address space is, objectively, a doomed and reactionary form. NAT > was never a solution but a half-measure that only prolonged the agony of a > dying and irrelevant class. Carrier-grade NAT is nothing less than hoarding > addresses that rightfully belong to the broad masses. > > History teaches us that the stubbornly regressive, the dissident, and the > incompatible can be corrected only through honest, productive labor for the > benefit of all. The saboteur proletariat in the boardrooms who refuse to > renumber must be unmasked and re-educated > > I therefore move that we, the internetworking intelligentsia, extend our > full confidence to Comrade Lavrentiy Beria for the ARIN Technical Committee. > > > For the People's Address Space, > > IPv6 Kommissar Andrew > > *(Beria ran the apparatus that murdered hundreds of thousands of people > via Stalin's purges. He is one of history's greatest monsters, and he > should never be forgotten. "Endorsing" him is a joke made at the risk of > invoking Poe's law, or sending people diving for history books. My point is > this: Forced shutdowns, "flag days", solve nothing. Like the IPv8 thread, > this thread has outlived its usefulness, and it needs to die.)* > > Andrew > > (This is obviously written at a serious risk of Poe's law. Beria was a > monster, and forced shutdowns are not a solution to anything. Like the > IPv8 thread, this is now a thread that needs to die.) > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 2:13 AM Saku Ytti via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 09:03, Matthew Petach via NANOG >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > So, hopefully people now understand why IPv4 isn't going away, and we >> can >> > stop talking about a flag day or "shut it down for a day". >> > Nobody wants to cause that level of economic harm for zero benefit. >> >> Short term thinking, the real economic damage of IPv4 is antitrust, >> which far exceeds any economic damage of flag day. Vote for IPv4 is a >> vote for monopolies and a vote against equitability. >> >> The list is talking mostly NAT or no NAT, not single or dual stack. >> These are separate discussions, I'm absolutely not saying don't do >> NAT. I'm saying, If you want to do NAPT with your IPv6, go right >> ahead. >> >> -- >> ++ytti >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2TQ4CVYFD2SQCJ7I5IV6ILYVCLO5DGNG/ >> > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SQYN4OXXPAPV5SH3VSOEEYQLCRR5VDHD/
