<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">My answer is to work on resolving the barriers to v6 instead of wasting time on this, yes.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 16, 2022, at 11:12 , David Bass <<a href="mailto:davidbass570@gmail.com" class="">davidbass570@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">So your answer is do nothing because we should be spending the time on v6?</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">There are a lot of barriers to v6, and there is no logical reason why this range of v4 subnets wasn’t made available to the world a decade (or two) ago. The next best time to do it is now though. </div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:21 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" class="">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">> <br class="">
> What struck me is how NONE of those challenges in doing IPv6 deployment<br class="">
> in the field had anything to do with fending off attempts to make IPv4<br class="">
> better.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Let me say that again. Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take<br class="">
> over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time<br class="">
> improving IPv4 standards instead".<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
I’ll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data available. True, none<br class="">
of the reasons directly claim “IPv6 isn’t good enough because we did X for v4<br class="">
instead”, yet all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient resources to<br class="">
make this the top priority.” which means that any resources being dedicated to<br class="">
improving (or more accurately further band-aiding) IPv4 are effectively being<br class="">
taken away from solving the problems that exist with IPv6 pretty much by<br class="">
definition.<br class="">
<br class="">
So I will stand by my statement that if we put half of the effort that has been<br class="">
spent discussing these 16 relatively useless /8s that would not significantly<br class="">
improve the lifespan of IPv4 on resolving the barriers to deployment of IPv6,<br class="">
we would actually have a lot less need for IPv4 and a lot more deployment of<br class="">
IPv6 already.<br class="">
<br class="">
Owen<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>