The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
jmaimon at ttec.com
Thu Sep 20 04:21:45 UTC 2012
Leo Vegoda wrote:
> There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18 months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild.
> The consensus seems to have been in favour of skipping 240/4 and just getting on with deploying IPv6, which everyone would have to do anyway no matter what. Is that so terrible?
Thats one suggestion. There are others. I cant determine which is more
prevalent, the IPv4 hate or the IPv6 victim mentality.
How does hindsight slow-mo replay this call of consensus?
Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
IPv6 deployment been working out?
That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict.
More information about the NANOG