> On Mar 16, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org
> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>> What struck me is how NONE of those challenges in doing IPv6 deployment
>> in the field had anything to do with fending off attempts to make IPv4
>> better.
>>
>> Let me say that again. Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take
>> over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time
>> improving IPv4 standards instead".
>
>
> I’ll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data available. True,
> none
> of the reasons directly claim “IPv6 isn’t good enough because we did X for v4
> instead”, yet all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient resources to
> make this the top priority.” which means that any resources being dedicated to
> improving (or more accurately further band-aiding) IPv4 are effectively being
> taken away from solving the problems that exist with IPv6 pretty much by
> definition.
>
> So I will stand by my statement that if we put half of the effort that has
> been
> spent discussing these 16 relatively useless /8s that would not significantly
> improve the lifespan of IPv4 on resolving the barriers to deployment of IPv6,
> we would actually have a lot less need for IPv4 and a lot more deployment of
> IPv6 already.
>
> Owen
>
Regarding
> all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient resources to
> make this the top priority.”
This is not a technical issue. It is a management issue where long term global
goals are sacrificed for short term local goals e.g., “How do I make my numbers
this month so my bonus happens?” The insufficiency is management incentives
driving management behavior.
James
