nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Reg does 240/4
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:38:10 -0800
There is one other mechanism available that has not yet come into play. One which this proposal seeks to further delay. In fact IMHO, the one that is most likely to ultimately succeed… At some point new entrants will be unable to obtain IPv4. When there is a sufficient critical mass of those that IPv4 only sites cannot reach, those sites will be faced with an ROI on IPv6 deployment they can no longer ignore. Hence, not only is this bad idea a waste of effort, but it’s actually harmful in the short, medium, and long terms. Owen
On Feb 14, 2024, at 15:35, Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> wrote: John, If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the discussion. Your remarks have been noted. It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time wasn't being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity completely. Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au () nanog org> on behalf of John Levine <johnl () iecc com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM To: nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 It appears that William Herrin <bill () herrin us> said:On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted effort had been put into that, instead."Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't wasting time arguing about this nonsense. R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: The Reg does 240/4, (continued)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: mail and IPv6, not The Reg does 240/4 Tim Howe (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Mike Hammett (Feb 16)
- RE: The Reg does 240/4 Brotman, Alex via NANOG (Feb 16)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 John Levine (Feb 16)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 17)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Michael Thomas (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 mail The Reg does 240/4 John Levine (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 mail The Reg does 240/4 Michael Thomas (Feb 17)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Tom Beecher (Feb 14)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 William Herrin (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Brian Knight via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Tom Beecher (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Brian Knight via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Mike Hammett (Feb 16)
- RE: The Reg does 240/4 Howard, Lee via NANOG (Feb 16)