Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Thu Nov 18 21:46:04 UTC 2021

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what has changed in the past lotsa years other
> than which prefix people want to make essentially the same
> arguments about. My observation has been that people don't
> want to extend the life of IPv4 per se; people want to keep using
> it for another very short time interval and then blame someone
> else for the fact that the 32 bit integers are a finite set.

Hi Fred,

The detractors for this proposal and those like it make the core claim
that we shouldn't take the long view improving IPv4 because IPv6 is
going to replace it any day now. Each day that passes with the end of
IPv4 still not in sight demonstrates how very wrong that strategy is.

If there's a change we can make to a standard now which will result in
IPv4 being better 20 years from now, we should make it. We should hope
that we never need the result because IPv6 takes over the world but we
should make the change anyway. Because hedging our bets is what
responsible people do.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/