Max Harmony via NANOG wrote:
On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good
chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant benefit
in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot guarantee it wont.
The reassignment being implemented faster than IPv6 seems like a big assumption.
Suppose you are correct. This time. Even a broken clock can be right
twice a day.
The only loss for the most part in most of these related proposals is
the time spent dickering on them and a few extra patches thrown in over
the next decade.
So just agree already.
127/8 is actually the proposal with the most potential for
implementation issues as the definition change wends its way into system
updates. And its easy to see that typical system updates tend to bring
far greater disruption to system administrators on a regular basis. I
would not rule out this change in that regard.
And if you are wrong, as history suggests you may very well be?
What is lost by not acting now is possibly far greater.
Joe
