[156568] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Thu Sep 20 00:27:53 2012
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:21:45 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <B7073753-F436-4CA5-940B-9FCE812EB999@icann.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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?
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo
>
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.
Joe
