[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Marc, long time no see indeed ;-)

> Marc Blanchet wrote :
> To me IPv6 is the only viable solution.

To me IPv4 is the only viable solution until a replacement for IPv6 is found.
You know what I do for a living. Where are the US$ 2B I need to dual-stack ?
I just can't afford it.
 

> but the larger address space remains a clear win over IPv4.

Not to everyone.


> To me, this whole discussion is moot. IPv6 has not yet took over IPv4 yet.

I saw that one coming a long time ago. Was a bit of a shock.


>  But that does not mean we shall not continue working on improving IPv6 and deploying it and use it.

You do what you have to do to insure your survival, and so do I.

At this point in time, the IPv6 zealots, by doing everything they can to kill IPv4, are a nuisance that has to be eliminated.

This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it. What does it cost IPv6 ? nothing. Why do the zealots torpedo it ? because anything that hurts IPv4 is good for them, or so they think. Net result : organizations that need more than 10/8 are now (and they are plenty of examples) squatting un-announced DoD space such as 30/8.


> I don’t think IPv4 will be dead in my lifetime.

Then keep your dogs on leash. We can bark and bite, too.
I am defending my ecosystem, and I am tired of the rethoric that IPv6 will take the world over. It will not.

Michel.