Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so
nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
And some widespread IPv4 stacks, refuse to handle IPv6 addresses.
it seems likely that more hosts currently support IPv6 than
support use of these IPv4 addresses. why should we go to
more effort to gain a bit more life out of IPv4 than it takes
to transition to IPv6?
Because the two are not mutually exclusive. And when companies begin to
suffer significant dollar damages as a result of the IPv4 address
shortage and start slinging unfair lawsuits around, we can get judge to
quickly and CHEAPLY dismiss such lawsuits by demonstrating that we did
not unfairly put roadblocks in the way of solutions that extend the life
of IPv4.
The IETF engineers protocols, not business models or technology choices.
We should make choices available but not try to force people down only
one road. It is not up to the IETF to engineer a transition to IPv6,
merely to make the tools available. Freeing up the former class E space
is an example of making a minor tool available, and it also sends a
strong message that the IETF believes that IPv4's days are numbered,
therefore there is no longer any need to reserve any portion of the IPv4
space for future use.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf