> From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> IPv4 is now practically dead.
The logic here doesn't seem to follow. If it's basically dead, why do you
care how the remaining address space is allocated?
> From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx>
> I do not believe this is a positive sum game where this allocation is
> made and everyone wins. I do believe IPv6 loses ... if this allocation
> is made
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results."
-- Albert Einstein, (attributed)
This whole 'if we make life difficult for IPv4, it will hasten the spread of
IPv6' strategy has been tried again, and again, and again, and again... and
how much success has it had?
Whether this allocation is made or not, I would guess that basically all the
ISPs who are going with CGN are going to... go with CGN. My sense is that
allocating, or not allocating, this space is not going to have much influence
on that decision - only on how ugly the results are.
Blocking this, hoping that doing so will speed deployment of IPv6, is just
lame. Is IPv6 really that desperate? Perhaps you could be putting the time and
energy you all are putting into fighting this into coming up with _positive_
ideas on how to spread IPv6, instead.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf