Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

David Conrad wrote:
> How trivial would the change be in a product by a company that no 
> longer exists or a product line that is no longer supported? Will 
> Microsoft update all previous versions of Windows? Will the myriad of 
> deployed embedded systems sitting forgotten in closets be updated? And 
> if you’re going to the trouble to update those systems (in most cases, 
> by simply throwing them away), why not upgrade to IPv6+IPv4aaS?
> > Especially as we have examples of what that type of effort might look like.
> Again, the issue isn’t fixing a bit of code in a known source tree. It is getting all the instantiations of that bit of 
> code implemented, tested, and deployed across all the myriad supported and unsupported systems (both operational and 
> management) that support 5 billion+ Internet users globally in a timeframe and for a cost that makes business sense.
>
> Regards,
> -drc


Lets agree to stop conflating the issue of products under active support 
and refresh cycles with the issue of those that are obsolete and only 
subject to attrition.

Two different problems areas entirely.

The former, yes it is trivial. An update in standards could yield rapid 
results here.

The latter takes time. An update in standards could take years to bear 
enough fruit. All the more reason it should have happened then, all the 
more reason to let it happen now.

Joe