[elaborating]
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Eliot Lear" <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Providing PI to enterprises who move now is a nice bonus, not
not necessary in the long run.
That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the
enterprise operational world. Unfortunately, that is rather common
with the ivory-tower vendor folks commenting in this thread. Even the
ISPs in the operational community could _understand_ why PI is
necessary, however much they dislike and/or fear it.
I should also note that you're commenting from an enterprise that
side-stepped the RIR rules somehow and got PI space by pretending to
be an LIR. The world must look a little different when the rules
you're a proponent of magically don't apply to _you_.
You've misunderstood my comment, and you don't know my history. I would
like for enterprises to be able to have PI addresses. What I am saying
is that the economics of IPv4 about to radically shift such that the
cost of staying on IPv4 is going to inflate over time. As that happens
the costs of moving to IPv6 begin to look attractive. It's like
drilling for oil in America, to mangle an analogy of a colleague.
Nobody needs to do it when the cost of oil is $18 a barrel, but the
matter is considerably different at $80.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf