On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 18:59 Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2019, at 09:33 , Antonios Chariton
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear list,
> > First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list.
> To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be
> in a gray
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:33 AM Antonios Chariton
wrote:
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 09:33 , Antonios Chariton wrote:
>
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my
> best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a gray
> area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the
I suspect that even if there was an entity with the reach to impose such a
tax, people will resort to deploying CGN more, to hide their IPv4 usage to
the extent possible. That's time, money, and effort taken away from moving
to IPv6.
You might also find that many taxed organizations will simply
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Antonios Chariton wrote on 02/10/2019 17:33:
>> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
>> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every
>> IPv4 address on the Global
Antonios Chariton wrote on 02/10/2019 17:33:
What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay
a tax. Let’s assume that this can
--
“MUST NOT support IPv4”..
I think a good start would be: "MUST support IPv6"!
---
Woah, there! Hold your horses. It's only been 20-something
years. You can't expect these things to happen overnight!
>;-)
scott
> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..
I think a good start would be: "MUST support IPv6"!
On 10/2/19 9:33 AM, Antonios Chariton wrote:
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the
> list. To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but
> may be in a gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought
> On 2 Oct 2019, at 20:23, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <5dcae7a8-1d33-4ea2-bbb1-7a3e8132d...@gmail.com> you write:
>> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6
>> deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
>
> If you have to impose an artificial
It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For example
for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They may want to
have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would for certain speed
up the process but there would be collateral damage in the
In article <5dcae7a8-1d33-4ea2-bbb1-7a3e8132d...@gmail.com> you write:
>What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6
>deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
If you have to impose an artificial tax to force people to use IPv6,
you've clearly admitted that
On Behalf Of Antonios Chariton
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 11:38 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment
To clarify that further, this would be a monthly tax. So $2 / month.
On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:33, Antonios Chariton
mailto:daknob@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear list,
First
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:48 AM Dovid Bender wrote:
> Antonios,
>
> It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For
> example for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They
> may want to have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would
> for
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:33 AM Antonios Chariton
wrote:
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To
> my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a
> gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following
Let me clarify that I 100% agree with both Job and Dovid. It is indeed a
terrible idea. And not everyone is even convinced IPv6 is the right next step.
So it’s obviously wrong to push people towards where someone thinks, even if
it’s the majority.
I just had a hunch that even then we would
It appears in your thought experiment, a stick is dressed up like a carrot.
I’m not a fan of deploying purely punitive strategies to promote adoption;
technologies should stand on their own and be able to convince the
potential users based on their merit, not based on penalties.
Antonios,
It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For
example for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They
may want to have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would
for certain speed up the process but there would be collateral damage
To clarify that further, this would be a monthly tax. So $2 / month.
> On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:33, Antonios Chariton wrote:
>
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my
> best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a
19 matches
Mail list logo
