[ppml] 240/4

Please guys, your beating a dead horse.  There needs to be a date set 
for the move to IPv6
and be done with it, do I like it, no, but it is the correct move to make.


Best Regards,
Richard



Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>On May 5, 2007, at 12:55 AM, vixie at vix.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>How much of the /4 would we need for rfc1918 type space?  Would a / 
>>>6 be
>>>enough?
>>>      
>>>
>>i don't think so.  the folks who find 10/8 inadequate want a LOT  
>>LOT LOT
>>more, not just a little more.
>>    
>>
>
>In that case, why don't they adopt v6 and be done with it ?
>
>Regards
>Marshall
>
>  
>
>>>It might be wise to save the rest of it for future, as yet  
>>>unimagined use.
>>>I wonder if any of the various encapsulation approaches to id/ 
>>>locator split
>>>could make use of some of that space.
>>>      
>>>
>>there is no future for IPv4 nor any reason to reserve or  
>>experiment.  we're
>>just looking for some fumes to breathe while we finally take IPv6  
>>seriously.
>>_______________________________________________
>>This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
>>(PPML at arin.net).
>>Manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
>(PPML at arin.net).
>Manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070505/b4eaaf36/attachment.html