The Reg does 240/4

Thu Feb 15 15:38:10 UTC 2024

There is one other mechanism available that has not yet come into play. One which this proposal seeks to further delay. In fact IMHO, the one that is most likely to ultimately succeed…

At some point new entrants will be unable to obtain IPv4. When there is a sufficient critical mass of those that IPv4 only sites cannot reach, those sites will be faced with an ROI on IPv6 deployment they can no longer ignore. 

Hence, not only is this bad idea a waste of effort, but it’s actually harmful in the short, medium, and long terms. 

Owen

> On Feb 14, 2024, at 15:35, Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
> 
> It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time wasn't being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity completely.
> 
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
> 
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au at nanog.org> on behalf of John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>  
> It appears that William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> said:
> >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
> >> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
> >
> >"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
> 
> Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
> wasting time arguing about this nonsense.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240215/6b0de1a5/attachment.html>