On 1 Dec 2011, at 21:41, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> 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? I don't. The marketeers do. For everybody who says, "Don't worry, the IETF is there for us, IPv4 will not go away because there is always going to be a need for it," I am happy to oblige the loss of another /8, or /10, for use in some horrible NAT44444 arrangement. However, it's true that I'd much rather we had botched, but available, IPv4 than full, but scarce, IPv4, because that provides the greatest benefit to everybody concerned in the current conditions, i.e., mostly IPv4. So, to the extent that people have *any* working IPv4, I care, otherwise, we can just start with the slate the IETF proposed over a decade ago now. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf