On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Jonas Björk <mr.jonas.bj...@me.com> wrote:
> > >> Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been > >> shortsighted. > > > > I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would > have to be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most* > in-use devices would NEVER see such an update. Even from companies that do > still exist. (Sadly, those are also devices that aren't going to see IPv6, > either.) > > Most stuff out there do only care about that its subnet mask OR's up > correctly with its ip and gw. Poof, there did 99.9 per cent of all devices > get excluded. Most stuff that Pretty sure this is wrong. > do use and/or misuse this freightening block of darkest cyberspace are > either high end network equipment (who drop) or some end users/mcast sender > which are behind NAT anyway. > > I believe it's a great idea. Let's at least try it out, like an > alpha-test. We choose a temporary /8 (easy to remember) and divide it into > /16s or less, depending on how many interested candidates we are able to > raise. After being approved by IANA we begin advertising our new prefixes > for a finite amount of time. If the world ends, or is about to, we stop. > > I believe we would bump into minor caveats but ISP's are beginning to NAT > their end customers due to the lack of free ips and I wouldn't want to live > in a world where that was the norm. This madness has to stop and v6 won't > salvate us for yet another total sonar eclipse or three. > > Definately wrong. There are many networks larger and smaller than yours that run ipv6-only (ds-lite, 464xlat, whatever facebook does in their dc). You are wasting time and money. Let us at least try it out - if it goes well we have bought us some time. > If not, revert. > Thank you for listening. > > br /Mr Bjork