<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Perhaps the clear future is to stay on a waiting-list for
nonexistent IPv4 addresses and continue to increase all the CGNAT
related issues and raise tensions on these forums for example.<br>
</p>
<p>Sincerely, in my view there is way too much political correctness
to leave people <span class="tlid-translation translation"
lang="en"><span title="" class="">comfortable</span></span><span
class="tlid-translation-gender-indicator
translation-gender-indicator"> </span>to implement IPv6
whenever they like, even if it takes another 20 years for them to
'feel the need'.</p>
<p>Yes, people are kings of their networks and still may choose when
they want to deploy IPv6, however inside this political
correctness many forget that *no organization exists alone in the
Internet Business*. When some refuses to accept IPv6 as a natural
evolution of this business they worse the problem to everybody
else, and these others have the right to penalize these who as
worsting everybody else's problem. Yes they can still exist in the
internet, but without a commitment they will remain where they
decided to stay: in the past.</p>
<p>At minimal to say believing IPv6 is not the solution for IPv4
exhaustion and hoping for 'something else' at this stage in my
view is similar to what the flat earth movement <span
class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span title=""
class="">preaches</span></span><span
class="tlid-translation-gender-indicator
translation-gender-indicator"></span>.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/10/2020 01:21, Michael Peddemors
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:843dd0ea-f05d-bb56-cda9-9fd29905273b@linuxmagic.com">On
2020-10-22 8:35 a.m., <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It is wrong to give this space to those
who are making no effort to move to IPv6, which is the clear
future of the Internet.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oh, I am going to be called a troll for this..
<br>
<br>
But seriously? First of all there are those who have no business
need to move to IPv6, where IPv4 is all they ever will need, so
you can understand that it will be low on their priority list....
<br>
<br>
And (wait for it) .. what emperical evidence do we have that IPv6
is the clear future of the internet.. after .. (how many years has
this been pushed?) .. all this time, it STILL is not universally
adopted, which in itself says it is NOT the 'clear future'..
<br>
<br>
Me, (okay, this is after a beer or two tonight) I was just having
a discussion with some people the other night, and we were
discussing the idea that a new protocol might even roll out at
this rate before IPv6 is universally adopted...
<br>
<br>
I think that while ARIN can be a proponent of moving to IPv6, it
still has a responsibility to listen to those who have no need for
this. The idea of penalizing IPv4 allocations, because they don't
believe in IPv6, seems .. well... I don't think it serves the
community properly.
<br>
<br>
(BTW, I am NOT an IPv6 hater, but the we do need to allow for
differing opinions in order for ARIN to truly represent all stake
holders, lest we fragment the community)
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>