On 22/09/17 12:11, [email protected] wrote: > Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should > we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution.
That actually raises a good point: consider the enterprise that has enough IPv4 addresses for the next 30 years of company operation. Perhaps they manufacture really nice deck chairs, or something. They won't be buying any IPv4, because they don't need any more. Does expensive IPv4 incentivise them to switch to IPv6? No. Companies of this ilk exist, and in their droves. None of them contribute to this list because they don't care one jot, as long as the WWW works. Bad IPv4 connectivity needs to break their access to the WWW before IPv6 will be anywhere on the list of that company's activities. This is _the_ business case for everyone, all the way from that situation, to those that are full blown ISPs: IPv4 needs to stop working before IPv6 will be considered by the vast majority of resource holders. It's primarily because of this that I'm against 2017-03: 1. It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment 2. It may go as far as to seriously impact the size of the DFZ 3. I see no benefit over the current policy Regards, -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
