Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:

> > I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents.
>
> But it wouldn’t be right now. It would be after everyone put lots of effort into updating lots of systems so that they 
> could support those 16 /8s.

I propose allowing and accepting that people get to decide on their own 
where to focus their efforts. I dont believe in top down management. I 
also dont believe that the available pool of other people efforts is a 
zero sum game.

> By the time you’ve done that, you might as well have focused that effort on making those same systems do IPv6.

See above.

> > Seems like procrastination is only bad when its your baby.
>
> Not really… This isn’t a question of procrastination or not. It’s a question of given that roughly the same effort is 
> required to do thing A or thing B
> and thing A (class E) leads nowhere in the long run while thing B provides a permanent solution, it makes much more 
> sense to focus said effort
> on thing B than to postpone thing B in favor of thing A.

See above. And really? "same effort?"

> > The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the community who created it.
>
> Not really. I think if you really consider what would be required for deployment of class E, you’ll find that there 
> truly is no there there.
>
> Owen

I am not advocating class E adoption. I am advocating removal of barrier 
to adoption and I will go so far as to advocate a bootstrapped incentive 
for adoption, for those who get to choose on their own how to focus 
their own efforts.

Its nice to point out that we are rehashing the exact debate you and I 
had a few years back. Self-fulfilling.

Joe

>