[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Riccardo Gori wrote:
>> There are no good solutions to the problem at hand, only compromises.
>> If the current policy is changed to something else, the people who
>> benefit in the short term will be happier and the people who pay for
>> this generosity will be disappointed.
> IPv6

If ipv6 provided full backwards compatibility with ipv4, it would be a
solution.

Any organisation which is forced into providing ipv4 connectivity using
an ipv6 transition mechanism will operate at a competitive disadvantage
to an organisation which can provide native ipv4.  This isn't a swipe at
ipv6: it's simply an observation that we have come to depend on features
of ipv4 which cannot be fully replicated using ipv6 transition mechanisms.

This is why I referred to migrating to ipv6 as a compromise.  Long term,
it may be a good compromise and many years down the road, it may even be
better than ipv4.  But as long as there are ipv4 addresses available, it
is condemned to being second best by the legacy of the existing
single-stacked ipv4 install base.

> every policy that makes IPv6 adoption a must can help slow down IPv4
> allocation rate and in the meanwhile will even lower IPv4 maket value
> [...]

I don't believe there is any evidence to support either of these statements.

Also, please bear in mind that if strong policies caused better adoption
of new protocols, we would be having this discussion using X.400.

Nick