Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:29, Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> wrote:
>
> 
> Owen,
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how you've come to the conclusion that I've 
> "presented [my] case numerous times" and that we "continue to persist".
It may be your first time at bat, but this proposal has been rejected in the IETF many times before over at least 2 
decades. 

> I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment in privately-owned networks will help. 
> People cannot be made to adopt IPv6 (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we must continue to 
> support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can encourage and help people move towards IPv6 we can't force 
> adoption through prevention of access to IPv4.

Actually, no,  no we should not continue to support IPv4. The sooner there are real world consequences to those 
networks that have failed to implement IPv6, the sooner they will finally do so. 

Unfortunately, yes, this will be temporarily painful to new entrants that are IPv6 only until there is a sufficient 
critical mass of them to drive the remaining (and ever decreasing) IPv4 only networks to finally act. 

Delaying that inevitability only prolongs this pain and does not improve or promote any common good. 

Owen