TJ and all, I assume that there will be one or likely more than one successor ti IPv4 naturally. My previous point in part was that there is/will/should/ or could be more than one. My understanding was that there was or is only one. Such is/may not be true. My other implied point was that IPv4 is likely to be around for some time to come regardless of any replacement and that perhaps some reclamation is still in order so that there is not only a final /8. That is all... TJ wrote:
Well, to be fair - while I _do_ believe IPv6 is the best available /feasible answer - I never said it was the only possible (part of the) answer.
(IMHO - IPv6 addresses (pun intended) one of the primary problems IPv4 is facing, and provides several other areas of advancement ... so why wouldn't it be the successor to IPv4? (Above and beyond those, it has been deployed in the real world and proven to work - and is being actively (if not quite aggressively) deployed by many others))
/TJ
-----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:56 PM To: trejrco@gmail.com Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
TJ and all,
I disagree that IPv6 will be/is/should be the only successor to IPv4.
trejrco@gmail.com wrote:
"It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the last /8 to say there won't be the last /8."
Really? IMHO these are two very different conversations - one is an "if", the other is a "when". In a case like this - as long as it is possible, it is worth being prepared for ...
(And prolonging IPv4 will probably just delay its successor (IPv6 or not) even longer, meaning we would still have a last /8 discussion - just later on ... And that is assuming such a delaying-policy was even feasible/successful)
FWLIW - I also disagree WRT IPv6 not being the successor to IPv4, but that is _also_ a separate conversation ...
/TJ
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:46:36 To: Gert Doering<gert@space.net> Cc: Jeffrey A. Williams<jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; Nick Hilliard<nick@inex.ie>; Randy Bush<randy@psg.com>; Marco Hogewoning<marcoh@marcoh.net>; Milton L Mueller<mueller@syr.edu>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Gert Doering wrote:
Please stick to the topic of *this* discussion. Even with reclamation efforts, eventually we will reach the last /8,
Why?
Assuming reduction of address space consumption by mandating NAT, I can't understand how the last /8 could be reached before IPv4 will be replaced by something not likely to be IPv6.
Could you elaborate?
and *this* discussion is only covering the rules for the last /8.
I don't think it off topic to discuss whether there will be the last /8 or not.
It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the last /8 to say there won't be the last /8.
Masataka Ohta
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827