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

We can surely pack up and go home after scraping up a /4. And we can even give it tactically to critical content delivery so people will be forced to move on it.
As we speak the mobile industry is discussing IMSI depletion as it gears up to connect billion(s) of new gadgets to 5G. 
This is not a v4 vs v6 war, it’s v4 and v6. If anything, v6 should be focusing and doubling down on the new uses coming along and not freting about IT managers of broken intranets. 


> On 7 Oct 2019, at 11:33, Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 07.10.19 um 06:07 schrieb Michel Py:
>>> Kai 'wusel' Siering
>>> Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses (10/8) does have the power to solve their
>>> addressing needs with IPv6. This isn't true for newcomers that have to deal with old players not enabling v6.
>> I do not agree because it does not fit my use-case, but this is the best argument I have heard for many years.
>> 
>> Keep in mind though : your idea is great, but it has been tried many times, for more than a decade, including by people who are respected players, big shots, and have serious clout, and it has repeatedly failed. What makes you think that you can make it work ? Everyone has tried, everyone has failed. Multiple times.
> 
> What exactly are you asking about? Un-reserving 240/4 in general, or adding it to the public space instead of wasting just more precious v4 space on intranets? First, and again, I do not aim to 'liberate' 240/4, 0/8 or 127/8. From my perspective IPv4 entered the stage 30+ years ago and is now on it's farewell tour — which will take some more decades, until it finally becomes irrelevant in the DFZ. Any changes to it, like changing 240/4's status, is robbing a dead body. But _if_ people are considering to do this, to me public unicast is the only valid option. Again, if you need more that 16 million IPs for your intranet, IPv6 is your answer. I understand you dislike that, fine by me; so go and grab unannounced public space, just be prepared for renumbering. A quarter of 44/8 is already in active use by AWS, more of that will happen: The Clouds need unprecedented amounts of v4 space.
> 
> I have no doubt the RIR system will again fail to protect the newcomers, but raising my voice is the only thing I can do. I'm not a LIR, ATM I don't represent a LIR — and even if, as you already said, it's the money that decides. Which means: 240/8 e. g. needs to go to and used by AWS, 241/8 to GCP, 242/8 to CF; that should give lazy eyeball ISPs a reason to fix their v4 gear, and I think 6 months from an IANA announcement of 240/4 becoming public unicast to the first allocating is plenty of time for those involved. Would that fix end-to-end globally? No. Does it matter? Not really. ISP<>Cloud/CDN is what matters today; the rest will follow, taking the scenic route.
> 
>> I must have missed what news you have about it.
> 
> You have missed my point completely – see the "please note" in my post –, presumably as it doesn't fit your point of view. I also have "enough" v4 space for the forseeable future for my use case; I came early to the party, and covered my needs. Unlike you, though, I still do look out of my swampy pool and ponder about how things _should_ be, in that tiny dinosaur brain of mine ;)
> -kai
> 
> 
>