On October 21, 2010 at 20:13 jba...@brightok.net (Jack Bates) wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 7:53 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> > * b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) [Thu 21 Oct 2010, 22:59 CEST]:
> >> And, of course, the RIRs could just cancel all the IPv4 route
> >> announcements, whatever they do if someone doesn't pay or whatever.
> >
> > I think you're mistaking the default-free zone for Usenet. The DFZ
> > doesn't have 'cmsg cancel' messages.
> >
>
> The "whatever they do if someone doesn't pay" is a nightmare. I suspect
> such a recourse wouldn't work for stopping IPv4.
Well, along with no more IPv4 DNS and it'd be pretty effective (I
suggested both for a reason.)
The idea isn't to make it impossible to run an ipv4 connection, tho at
some point it'd have to be encapsulated in IPv6 to get routed across
the public infrastructure, the idea is to declare it dead and stop
expending (shared) resources on it.
I guess I just answered my own question: "Why bother?"
So we can stop expending resources on IPv4 like managing address space
allocations, route announcements, firefighting, DNS, all the wonky
this inside that encapsulation schemes, etc.
I'd let folks like the RIRs and DNS root managers speak to how much of
a win that would be tho it would affect others, particularly the
firefighting part. If IPv4 is maintained forever then one presumes it
works reasonably well forever and that's kinda why everyone here is
here, no?
Anyhow, it might be an interesting topic to discuss in the appropriate
venues, IETF, "What is the cost of maintaining IPv4 forever?" but it's
getting a little ahead of ourselves in terms of any pressing need.
So...it wasn't a dumb question to raise, just perhaps a bit premature.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
