Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

John Levine wrote:
> > I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
> > other then the ipv6 adherents.
>
> It would, if the software supported it. But it doesn't.
>
> Is there any reason to think the world would update its TCP stacks to
> handle those extra IPv4 addresses any sooner than it'd update its
> stacks to handle IPv6?  Doesn't seem likely.
>
> R's,
> John

Are you really equating an incremental silent update to remove something 
between one if statement or slightly more and an entire protocol stack 
that when active fundamentally changes the host networking behavior?

This objection hinges on the assumption that if there is even ONE host 
on the network that will not accept that address, then the entire effort 
was a waste.

Because there would then be no difference to the many many IPv4 (and 
IPv6) updates that were made with no guarantee of universal adoption.

Its not really standards place to make that judgement call. Worse, it is 
not the standards role to ensure the outcome by making that judgement call.

Joe