Waste will kill ipv6 too
jfbeam at gmail.com
Fri Dec 29 02:54:45 CST 2017
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:15:45 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon at orthanc.ca>
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
> If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions
> placed upon that address space.
> And if some genius comes up with something that burns through all the
> IPv6 address space, you can rest assured the market (and not the IETF)
> will come up with a replacement that extends things beyond 128 bits in a
> ripping big hurry.
Like IPv6 came along in a "ripping big hurry"? It's been over 20 years,
and I still don't have a commercial ISP providing me IPv6. And my home
connection doesn't get v6 because the lame idiots at Earthlink never gave
TWC any of the dozens of prefixes they own but don't announce.
(and the twc link at work... (a) "not enabled on the headend", and (b)
doesn't work through a Ubee)
More information about the NANOG