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

* Gert Doering (gert at space.net) [191007 12:56]:
> I take a bit of offense here.  We did what we could to "protect the
> newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is
> not enough v4, what else could we have done?

Let me answer this from the newcomer's side:
You did good and the policy is fine as it is. 

Some of us just adapted and implemented IPv6 rightaway, 
taking those breadcrumbs of v4 as fallback, while the 
dinosaurs kept whining about missing IPv6 support for their
outdated windows 95 machines (which could be funny, if 
it wasn't so pathetic). We did this despite the fact that 
the old economy will use it's legacy ressources to 
keep us out of the business and those who couldn't afford
to wait for the dinosaurs to die out are using lots of 
cash to ease their pain.

Most newcomers COULD easily go v6-only and although there would be 
problems, they would be able to handle that while moving forward.
That is ... IF those dinosaurs would move just a tiny bit and 
at least implemented a minimum of IPv6 on their public services 
and at least application proxies or nat64 for the rest of their 
cruft. 

But it's the same story as with climate change: The next generation 
doesn't have a voice in this game, but will pay for the greed of
those who where lucky enough to be there for a long time when 
plenty of ressources where available and the same legacy people
are now whining about the cost of change. 

Bjørn