Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

Barry Shein bzs at
Wed Jun 18 21:15:03 UTC 2014

Not to mix this up but one of the main reasons I attended ICANN
meetings over several years was an interest in the IPv4/IPv6

To say interest was sparse is an under, er, over statement.

There was a good session on legacy IPs, a topic more than marginally
related, in Toronto in fall 2012, a few people here were there.

Really, I can list them like that.

I'd sit in on the "ISP" sessions, for years, but when they weren't
talking about how to fill out travel reimbursement reports (Brussels)
they were mostly talking about site takedowns for intellectual
property violations and similar, very similar, trademark issues and
domains, etc.

In a nutshell the whole TLD thing and other registry/registrar and
closely related business issues so dominated discussions it drowned
everything else out about 99%.

If I'd bring it up, shouldn't we be discussing what we can do as an
organization about IPv4/IPv6?, I'd usually get a 1,000 mile stare like
who let this guy in? I remember once being cut off with "oh, CGN will
solve that (Sydney)."

I realize RIRs are more directly involved in many ways but this should
be, in my opinion, a high-priority global internet governance policy
issue with RIRs implementing or enjoying the results, not driving the
issue, or only as much as they can.

Then again vis a vis ICANN you can say this about almost any issue not
directly related to registry/registrar business matters.

TL;DR: I think there's an exposure and public awareness problem, even
with those who are chartered with being interested.

        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at           |
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

More information about the NANOG mailing list