<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello Ray,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 22 Sep 2017, at 10:40, Jetten Raymond <<a href="mailto:raymond.jetten@elisa.fi" class="">raymond.jetten@elisa.fi</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class="">I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal,<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm a co-author of the proposal... and I agree with you, in as much that postponing efforts to deploy v6 is rewarding the wrong thing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I don't recall that being the goal of the original last /8 proposal at all.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Our observations are:</div><div class="">- in order for new entrants to deploy v6 at all, they currently need a little bit of v4</div><div class="">- this fact is probably not going to change between now and the currently-expected runout of the last /8</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, just like the original last /8 proposal, I believe that this is a pro-v6 proposal. All that's changed between the original last /8 proposal and now is that we now have a picture of the run-rate of the last /8.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So this proposal is to give more new entrants the chance to join the v6 internet - with the bit of v4 they need to do that - instead of allowing the rest of us to externalise the cost of v4 runout even further.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards,</div><div class="">Anna</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">-- <br class="">Anna Wilson<br class="">Service Desk Manager<br class="">HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network<br class="">1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland<br class="">+353 (0)1 6609040 <a href="mailto:anna.wilson@heanet.ie" class="">anna.wilson@heanet.ie</a> <a href="http://www.heanet.ie" class="">www.heanet.ie</a><br class="">Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270</div>
</div>
<br class=""></div></body></html>