> > > Longer prefixes are misguided for a number of reasons, but I was’t > > > referring to that. > > > I was calling the idea of deluding ourselves into believing that the > > > useful lifetime of IPv4 can be extended by these ever increasing extreme > > > measures misguided. > > This is starting to digress from the original purpose of this discussion, > > so I'll keep it short. Using longer prefixes is by no means delusional, > > rather it is significantly beneficial in allowing smaller and newer network > > operators to establish more than two points of presence, and it most > > certainly prevents wastage at IXes. > I never said longer prefixes were delusional. Misguided, yes. Ill-advised, > yes. Delusional, no. > Believing that we can keep extending the useful life of IPv4 by such > shenanigans, OTOH, is delusional.
I disagree. Extending the useful life is not delusional. Whether we like it or not, IPv4 is not going away anytime soon. Yes, we need to progress with moving forward (some to argue faster than what we are now) however I'm almost certain we will not see IPv6 become mainstream in our lifetime. For this reason, while we are moving forward with v6 we still need to ensure that we can continue to support new networks in their ability to utilise v4 resources and if this means that we need to delegate and use prefixes longer than a /24, then that's what we should do. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
