Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without
also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.
For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's
not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is
exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282:
"
6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One
hundred people for and five people against might not be rough
consensus
Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3>
discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when
objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and
accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus
avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of
folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be
dealt with before consensus can be declared. "
The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity
is the point
at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it
historic, and
no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so
long as
being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being
functional on
the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion
problem is
"solved."
Matt
I dont know how many ways and times this needs to be said, but you said
it quite well.
Joe
