On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> <snip> > And that helps identify a third risk. How relevant it is > depends on one's perspective and understanding of reality but > that risk is: > > 3) People will conclude that these various kludges are > actually medium-term solutions and will put resources > into them that would have gone into deploying IPv6 > instead. > > As soon as you say "folks are going to need to go to the trouble > and expense of developing and deploying replacements for a lot > of installed-base IPv4 software, the resources involved become > significant and there are tradeoffs with other ways in which > those resources could be invested. It is quite likely that resources will be used on prolonging IPv4 if there is a way of doing that, like putting this last netblock into use. That just put IPv6 even further off and cause even more trouble down the road. However, if this proposal goes through and that last netblock are assigned to use, how long will it take before anyone ask the following question: Why haven't that last netblock been put to use by the RIR earlier and with that given us more time to prepare for IPv6? -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@xxxxxxxxx | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no ; | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf