Leo Vegoda wrote:
There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond
drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18
months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with
deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild.
The consensus seems to have been in favour of skipping 240/4 and just getting
on with deploying IPv6, which everyone would have to do anyway no matter what.
Is that so terrible?
Regards,
Leo
Thats one suggestion. There are others. I cant determine which is more
prevalent, the IPv4 hate or the IPv6 victim mentality.
How does hindsight slow-mo replay this call of consensus?
Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
IPv6 deployment been working out?
That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict.
Joe
