Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 1/12/24 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you 
> attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the 
> simple fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues 
> to get worse over time. NAT was bad. CGNAT is even worse (and 
> tragically does nothing to eliminate consumer NAT, just layers more 
> disaster on top of the existing mess).
>
> The only currently available end to end peer to peer technology, for 
> better or worse, is IPv6. Despite its naysayers, it is a proven 
> technology that has been shouldering a significant fraction of 
> internet traffic for many years now and that fraction continues to grow.
>
> You simply can’t make IPv4 adequate and more hackers to extend its 
> life merely expands the amount of pain and suffering we must endure 
> before it is finally retired.
I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC 
that makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If 
it works for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all 
of these recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use 
when the knowability of whether it could work is zero.

Mike