Re: IPv4 flag day

[Andrew Kirch via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Comrades,

Antitrust? Flag days? These are the timid, vacillating measures of
right-opportunists who have not yet grasped our historical inevitability.

32-bit address space is, objectively, a doomed and reactionary form. NAT
was never a solution but a half-measure that only prolonged the agony of a
dying and irrelevant class. Carrier-grade NAT is nothing less than hoarding
addresses that rightfully belong to the broad masses.

History teaches us that the stubbornly regressive, the dissident, and the
incompatible can be corrected only through honest, productive labor for the
benefit of all. The saboteur proletariat in the boardrooms who refuse to
renumber must be unmasked and re-educated

I therefore move that we, the internetworking intelligentsia, extend our
full confidence to Comrade Lavrentiy Beria for the ARIN Technical Committee.


For the People's Address Space,

IPv6 Kommissar Andrew

*(Beria ran the apparatus that murdered hundreds of thousands of people via
Stalin's purges.  He is one of history's greatest monsters, and he should
never be forgotten.  "Endorsing" him is a joke made at the risk of invoking
Poe's law, or sending people diving for history books. My point is this:
Forced shutdowns, "flag days", solve nothing. Like the IPv8 thread, this
thread has outlived its usefulness, and it needs to die.)*

Andrew

(This is obviously written at a serious risk of Poe's law.  Beria was a
monster, and forced shutdowns are not a solution to anything.  Like the
IPv8 thread, this is now a thread that needs to die.)

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 2:13 AM Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 09:03, Matthew Petach via NANOG
> <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> > So, hopefully people now understand why IPv4 isn't going away, and we can
> > stop talking about a flag day or "shut it down for a day".
> > Nobody wants to cause that level of economic harm for zero benefit.
>
> Short term thinking, the real economic damage of IPv4 is antitrust,
> which far exceeds any economic damage of flag day. Vote for IPv4 is a
> vote for monopolies and a vote against equitability.
>
> The list is talking mostly NAT or no NAT, not single or dual stack.
> These are separate discussions, I'm absolutely not saying don't do
> NAT. I'm saying, If you want to do NAPT with your IPv6, go right
> ahead.
>
> --
>   ++ytti
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/2TQ4CVYFD2SQCJ7I5IV6ILYVCLO5DGNG/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/RHKED5B2O55E3TJQAAFLPHSJHZGME77G/