So your answer is do nothing because we should be spending the time on v6?
There are a lot of barriers to v6, and there is no logical reason why this range of v4 subnets wasn’t made available to the world a decade (or two) ago. The next best time to do it is now though.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:21 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> What struck me is how NONE of those challenges in doing IPv6 deployment
> in the field had anything to do with fending off attempts to make IPv4
> better.
>
> Let me say that again. Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take
> over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time
> improving IPv4 standards instead".
I’ll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data available. True, none
of the reasons directly claim “IPv6 isn’t good enough because we did X for v4
instead”, yet all of them in some way refer back to “insufficient resources to
make this the top priority.” which means that any resources being dedicated to
improving (or more accurately further band-aiding) IPv4 are effectively being
taken away from solving the problems that exist with IPv6 pretty much by
definition.
So I will stand by my statement that if we put half of the effort that has been
spent discussing these 16 relatively useless /8s that would not significantly
improve the lifespan of IPv4 on resolving the barriers to deployment of IPv6,
we would actually have a lot less need for IPv4 and a lot more deployment of
IPv6 already.
Owen