On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 13:59, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > Ron, > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> At NANOG 54, ARIN reported that they are down to 5.6 /8s. If just four ISPs >> ask for a /10 for CGN, we burn one of those /8s. >> >> Is that really a good idea? > > Long ago, I once proposed a policy at ARIN to try to extend the IPv4 runway. > One of the most common responses I received (including from several members > of ARIN's AC) was "let it run out naturally", with the rationale being either: > > a) "it'll force people to move to IPv6" > b) "we spent a lot of money to prepare for IPv6 because we knew it was coming > soon, we don't want to give our competitors who fiddled the summer away more > time" > > I suspect those people would answer "yes" (well, unless their opinions have > changed as reality starts biting).
Being one of the people who believe that IPv4 should run out naturally, I can tell you that my answer is "no." Natural-run-out and waste are not synonymous. Cheers, ~Chris > Regards, > -drc > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
