[arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <CAMDXq5Mbe2dn9aWxho-H-p8G3yqwbaAK-RXr7uQmTaC5PBtyCA at mail.gmail.com>
Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>This all seems silly to me. #IMHO, IPv4 policy should be geared only mostly
>assuaging operators to get to v6. Total exhaustion is a part of that.

If that's a goal, total IPv4 exhaustion could be legislated -today-.  All
five RIRs would simply have to agree to stop giving out any more IPv4 blocks.

I haven't heard anybody except a for few dyed-in-the-wool IPv6 afficianadoes
clamoring for quite such a draconian solution however.

>Talking about v6 exhaustion is probably better suited for the IETF. Either
>way, we'll all be dead if/when it happens...

Speak for yourself!  I have plans to still be here in 2050!  (And I even hold
out some vague hope that some encoding of myself will still be around in time
to see humanity's construction of its first Dyson sphere.)

More to the point, I do suspect that the argument that "we'll all be dead
by then" was likely pretty much the same reasoning and argument used by
the progenitors of IPv4 when they settled on 32 bits as being more than
enough to outlive them.

Needless to say, with 20/20 hindsight we now know that didn't quite work
out as planned.


Regards,
rfg