[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2 ... veering onto a different (but realted topic) ...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Thu Jul 9 03:55:42 CEST 2009
TJ and all, I disagree that IPv6 will be/is/should be the only successor to IPv4. trejrco at gmail.com wrote: > "It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the last /8 to say there won't be the last /8." > > Really? IMHO these are two very different conversations - one is an "if", the other is a "when". In a case like this - as long as it is possible, it is worth being prepared for ... > > (And prolonging IPv4 will probably just delay its successor (IPv6 or not) even longer, meaning we would still have a last /8 discussion - just later on ... And that is assuming such a delaying-policy was even feasible/successful) > > FWLIW - I also disagree WRT IPv6 not being the successor to IPv4, but that is _also_ a separate conversation ... > > /TJ > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> > > Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:46:36 > To: Gert Doering<gert at space.net> > Cc: Jeffrey A. Williams<jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>; Nick Hilliard<nick at inex.ie>; Randy Bush<randy at psg.com>; Marco Hogewoning<marcoh at marcoh.net>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net<address-policy-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2 > > Gert Doering wrote: > > > Please stick to the topic of *this* discussion. Even with reclamation > > efforts, eventually we will reach the last /8, > > Why? > > Assuming reduction of address space consumption by mandating NAT, > I can't understand how the last /8 could be reached before IPv4 > will be replaced by something not likely to be IPv6. > > Could you elaborate? > > > and *this* discussion is > > only covering the rules for the last /8. > > I don't think it off topic to discuss whether there will be the > last /8 or not. > > It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the > last /8 to say there won't be the last /8. > > Masataka Ohta Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2 ... veering onto a different (but realted topic) ...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]