On 1 Dec 2011, at 21:41, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail(_at_)sabahattin-gucukoglu(_dot_)com>
IPv4 is now practically dead.
The logic here doesn't seem to follow. If it's basically dead, why do you
care how the remaining address space is allocated?
I don't. The marketeers do. For everybody who says, "Don't worry, the IETF is
there for us, IPv4 will not go away because there is always going to be a need
for it," I am happy to oblige the loss of another /8, or /10, for use in some
horrible NAT44444 arrangement. However, it's true that I'd much rather we had
botched, but available, IPv4 than full, but scarce, IPv4, because that provides
the greatest benefit to everybody concerned in the current conditions, i.e.,
mostly IPv4. So, to the extent that people have *any* working IPv4, I care,
otherwise, we can just start with the slate the IETF proposed over a decade ago
Ietf mailing list