Hello Ray, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 10:40, Jetten Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal, > > IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in > time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give more > time to seriously start to implement v6. The more time we are given, the more > time it will take, that’s how we have done it in the past, and I don’t see > the laziness go if not forced to. Warnings were ignored, we (v6 advocates) > were laughed at, "again it will end", " you’ve told us that many years". Even > if we only hand out a /28, we still have the basic problem, and it won't go > away v4 WILL run out. Don’t make the suffering any longer.
I'm a co-author of the proposal... and I agree with you, in as much that postponing efforts to deploy v6 is rewarding the wrong thing. But I don't recall that being the goal of the original last /8 proposal at all. Our observations are: - in order for new entrants to deploy v6 at all, they currently need a little bit of v4 - this fact is probably not going to change between now and the currently-expected runout of the last /8 So, just like the original last /8 proposal, I believe that this is a pro-v6 proposal. All that's changed between the original last /8 proposal and now is that we now have a picture of the run-rate of the last /8. So this proposal is to give more new entrants the chance to join the v6 internet - with the bit of v4 they need to do that - instead of allowing the rest of us to externalise the cost of v4 runout even further. Best regards, Anna -- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 [email protected] www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
