> On Mar 31, 2022, at 15:32 , Joe Maimon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that
aren’t deploying IPv6 to
get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4
backwater.
Owen
