[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

[James Jun]

> 
> How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been
> proven?

Exactly, and it is your position to force it down to everyone when as you
stated, the protocol's needs have not been proven?  Perhaps we should more
focus in proving the needs of the protocol before forcing it down on
everyone by setting artificial time for IPv4 withdrawal.

I am puzzled as to your exact position on what to do after the T-date.  What
exactly is your position to do after the artificial T-date?  Do you support
switching to IPv6 by the determined date?  Or are we just declaring that we
artificially set date for end-of-the-world and letting people ponder what to
do?

This proposal is flawed because it offers no solution on what to do past the
artificial IPv4 termination date, nor does it offer any easier solutions on
how to make IPv6 transition easier, cheaper and more preferable for the
majority in the industry.  It simply assumes that LIRs would just migrate to
IPv6 simply by threatening them with artificially set timelines.  Don't
expect every CEO sitting in plane reading those so-called magazines to
always call their MIS/IT department to ask what the hell happened; some will
resort to frivolous lawsuits.


james