[address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 09/22/2017 11:40 AM, Jetten Raymond wrote:
> IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give more time to seriously start to implement v6. The more time we are given, the more time it will take, that’s how we have done it in the past, and I don’t see the laziness go if not forced to. Warnings were ignored, we (v6 advocates) were laughed at, "again it will end", " you’ve told us that many years". Even if we only hand out a /28, we still have the basic problem, and it won't go away v4 WILL run out. Don’t make the suffering any longer.

What you expect you can solve by "fast" depletion? Nothing, in my eyes.

There're other mechanisms used to overcome lack of IPv4 in access
networks (since RFC 1631 was introduced), and yes - there're "lazy"
providers without IPv6 within their networks. And they can (and will)
survive for many years without IPv6 implemented - as there isn't any
major IPv6-only service.

>From content-provider perspective, you cannot start new services without
IPv4 and simply cut some customers behind IPv4 NATs from your business.

We have to deal with reality - IPv6 adoption is slower than we expected.
Even standardisation of IPv6 was quite slow in some details - we had to
wait 18 years for RFC 8200...

- Daniel