Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

Matthew Petach wrote:
> In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
> somewhere in your network.  IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
> address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without
> also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.
>
> For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's
> not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is
> exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282:
>
> "
> 6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One 
> hundred people for and five people against might not be rough
> consensus
>
>     Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3>  discussed the idea of consensus being achieved 
> when
>     objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and
>     accommodated if necessary).  Because of this, using rough consensus
>     avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of
>     folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be
>     dealt with before consensus can be declared. "
> The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity 
> is the point
> at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it 
> historic, and
> no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion.  Until then, so 
> long as
> being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being 
> functional on
> the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion 
> problem is
> "solved."
>
> Matt

I dont know how many ways and times this needs to be said, but you said 
it quite well.

Joe