> >> Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so > >> nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet. > >> > > > > And some widespread IPv4 stacks, refuse to handle IPv6 addresses. > > > it seems likely that more hosts currently support IPv6 than > support use of these IPv4 addresses. why should we go to > more effort to gain a bit more life out of IPv4 than it takes > to transition to IPv6? Because the two are not mutually exclusive. And when companies begin to suffer significant dollar damages as a result of the IPv4 address shortage and start slinging unfair lawsuits around, we can get judge to quickly and CHEAPLY dismiss such lawsuits by demonstrating that we did not unfairly put roadblocks in the way of solutions that extend the life of IPv4. The IETF engineers protocols, not business models or technology choices. We should make choices available but not try to force people down only one road. It is not up to the IETF to engineer a transition to IPv6, merely to make the tools available. Freeing up the former class E space is an example of making a minor tool available, and it also sends a strong message that the IETF believes that IPv4's days are numbered, therefore there is no longer any need to reserve any portion of the IPv4 space for future use. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf