nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 21:24:06 -0500
Tom Beecher wrote:
Reverse that. IPv6 has impediments to adoption, which is why more time and resources are being spent to keep IPv4 usable until those impediments can be overcome.The biggest impediment to IPv6 adoption is that too many people invest too much time and resources in finding ways to squeeze more blood from the IPv4 stone.
IPv6 isn't perfect. That's not an excuse to ignore it and invest the limited resources we have into Yet Another IPv4 Zombification Effort.
As noted earlier, False DilemmaEven worse, your thinking presupposes a finite amount of people-effort resources that must be properly managed by those superior in some fashion with more correct thinking.
I hope you can see when focused in that fashion all that is wrong with that viewpoint.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast, (continued)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Provo (Nov 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Karsten Thomann via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jim (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Tom Beecher (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Matthew Petach (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Lee (Nov 19)