Mark,
I really enjoyed your professional remarks for the years and your deep and
intrinsic mind,
but it seems that now it is not a time to discuss the issue that ipv4 is scarce
resource :)
My opinion that IPv6 was done in the worst manner and we should simply
recognize that we have no other way to satisfy industry needs in such short
time.
Nothing personal - as a lot of my friends spent significant part of their life
on it.
Dima
On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <FB949BEA-5BDB-401A-8A75-E9A9BDAA72A6(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>, Daniel
Karrenberg w
rites:
On 02.08.2012, at 22:41, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
... That depends on whether the registry in question is dealing with a
scarce resource or a plentiful one. Having two registries handing out
IPv4 addresses at this point would be very very bad. Having more than
one place you can get an IPv6 from would not worry me at all. ...
IPv4 addresses used to be regarded as non-scarce not so long ago.
I don't know what planet you have been living on but it was clear
IPv4 addresses were a scarce resource 2+ decades ago longer than
some IETF attendees have been alive. IPv6 was started because they
were a scarce resource that would run out in the foreseeable future.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org