Re: IPv4 flag day

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

Apologies for the double-signature.  This suffered from some over-editing
because I was concerned someone might naively take what I said at face
value instead of understanding the actual intent.

Andrew

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 3:17 AM Andrew Kirch <trelane () trelane net> wrote:

> 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/SQYN4OXXPAPV5SH3VSOEEYQLCRR5VDHD/