[190443] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Mon Jul 4 16:56:51 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>,
Scott Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 22:56:07 +0200
In-Reply-To: <DAC3BF99-FB01-4E1A-8303-E30DF296E856@rivervalleyinternet.net>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 4/Jul/16 16:33, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Except that IPv4 is not exhausted. That's the doomsday message that was preached over and over.
>
> The simple fact that there is/are IP broker exchanges now simply proves there are surplus IPs to go around.
>
> We have an efficiency utilization issue - not an exhaustion issue.
As a global Internet community, which is easier to do? Going around
looking for inefficiencies in holders' allocations, or getting on with
the job of deploying IPv6?
Mark.
