[arin-ppml] Ending point to point links as a justification for a /30?

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 29, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Dennis Palmero wrote:

>> That it wont happen unless there is absolutely no choice? Is it really 
>> that bad? Why cant it win on its own merits?
> 
> Wise words, indeed.
> 
> I think this is indicative of a wide rift between agreement that there
> is a problem (IPv4 exhaustion) but disagreement on _accepting_ the
> solution (IPv6).  We know that IPv6 is the best solution we have right
> now, but issues, both real and perceived, with IPv6 adoption means that
> IPv6's defenders can come off rather strongly in an effort to forestall
> greater IP-exhaustion problems down the line.
> 
> I wish there would be an IPv7 that was IPv4 backwards-compatible and
> solved many of IPv6's negative-perceptions, but we'll have to deal with
> what we have, especially in the time crunch that we have.
> 
Try this mental exercise...

Express a 128 bit number in 32 bits such that all possible 128 bit values
are uniquely expressed in the 32 bit field.

If you solve this problem, please contact me, I'm sure we can make money
from your solution.

If you cannot solve this problem, then please understand that there is no
way to have a host which expects everything to be a 32 bit value be
forwards compatible with a 128 bit world.

It's time to move forward. IPv6 is the best solution we have today, and,
today is the day. Yesterday would have been better. Last year better
still. Tomorrow is worse. Next year will be MUCH worse.

We're out of time. IPv4 runout is now truly approaching rapidly.

We're less than a year from runout. Even if you had a perfect new
protocol in a standards-track RFC with full consensus today, you
couldn't get it into enough routers to have it fully deployed in time.
IPv6 is what we have. It is the solution we need to accept. We don't
have any workable alternatives. (NAT-PT, and other v6<->v4
hacks are not sustainable nor can they provide equivalent levels
of service to even current IPv4 with NAT, let alone proper internet
access).

Owen

> Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments is confidential and intended only for the addressee(s). If you are not an addressee, you may not copy or disclose the information, or act upon it, and you should delete it entirely from your e-mail system. Please notify the sender that you received this e-mail in error.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.