Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message <CANjVB-jbtc4V5yba0xtGA7N5geQcz86hvydj4J9J8UxhzMMEZw () mail gmail com>
>
> > We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly
> > to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone.
>
> That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents.

But it wouldn’t be right now. It would be after everyone put lots of effort into updating lots of systems so that they 
could support those 16 /8s.

By the time you’ve done that, you might as well have focused that effort on making those same systems do IPv6.

> Seems like procrastination is only bad when its your baby.

Not really… This isn’t a question of procrastination or not. It’s a question of given that roughly the same effort is 
required to do thing A or thing B
and thing A (class E) leads nowhere in the long run while thing B provides a permanent solution, it makes much more 
sense to focus said effort
on thing B than to postpone thing B in favor of thing A.

> The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the community who created it.

Not really. I think if you really consider what would be required for deployment of class E, you’ll find that there 
truly is no there there.

Owen