valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:36:08 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
6 years of work
What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or
_more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a serious effort at the time.
In fact, we still do not know how much "more" is, because the upper
bound of more is when IPv4 need actually tapers off and is replaced with
IPv6 consumption.
When you say you did all you could for IPv4, that is an opinion and
hardly an objective one at that. Expect the debates to continue.
to accomplish something that would only buy us 16 /8s, which
would be maybe 2 year's supply,
As supply tightens, consumption slows. Lets see how long the last /8
last RIPE.
You have no way of knowing what the consumption rate will be in the
final days of IPv4 and how much of an impact 16 /8 would make at that point.
We are not there yet.
instead of actually deploying IPv6.
Right, because it was an either or.
And at the
end of the 2 years, you'll *still* have to do the work of deploying IPv6 That
sort of trade-off only makes sense for somebody in *serious* denial.
Turns out it was a neither.
Joe
