Y2K had a slightly different dynamic, largely driven by the marketing practices of Y2K vampires. As soon as the fangs were buried in a fresh prey the victim was forced to send letters to all its suppliers asking if they were Y2K compliant, thus creating fresh meat for the pack to hunt, "and so the poison slowly spreads" Nobody was willing to give skeptics time in the mainstream media in case someone followed their advice and got sued. IPv4 is not a sudden catastrophe, there will always be availability if you are willing to pay. The problem is that if you are trying to add the the 4,294,967,297th host to the Internet you have to pay one of the previous 4,294,967,296 hosts to get off. So you have to compensate them for the marginal value of being on the Internet as the 4,294,967,296th member. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Morris [mailto:dwm@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:18 AM > To: Nick Staff > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: NATs as firewalls > > > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote: > > > I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be > the setting > > of a hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. > This would > > make it real for everyone and ignite the IPv6/IPv4 gateway > market (I > > think). Not to mention we'd never have to have another debate over > > when IPv4 was going to run out which might be benefit > enough in itself > > ;) > > What a lawsuit mess that would be ... artificial limits would > never work. > > Add to your list of reasons why people aren't motivated ... > remember the Y2K meltdown? Not! The little boy has already > cried wolf one too many times. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf