On November 18, 2021 at 11:15 cabo@tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) wrote:
On 2021-11-18, at 00:29, Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
This seems like a really bad idea
Right up there with the FUSSP.
They do have one thing in common which is people will immediately shoot down proposals because they would take TEN (pick a number) YEARS to make any difference. And they'll continue saying that for 20+ years every time it comes up absolutely certain each time that it's a showstopper. My take is people reflexively don't like change, they tend to not like others' solutions (the NIH reaction), and if they can get past those they certainly want only a solution which can be deployed in a very short period of time, likely to make a difference in a year or two if not sooner, at no "cost". Which is how we get things like yet another layer of encryption since they're invariably voluntary (DO/DON'T, WILL/WON'T designs, default DON'T), just cobbled into some existing protocol so can be deployed immediately at least by a handful of supporters w/o any disruption or urgency. At least those are failsafe, when almost no one adopts it who cares? (I realize there's no encryption involved here IT'S AN ANALOGY, a meta-observation, OK?)
https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
Someone should write a page like that about the FUSIAS (final ultimate solution to the IPv4 address shortage) proposals.
Grüße, Carsten
I don't believe this is being proposed as a final...etc, just: So long as we do have a shortage how might we at least not waste what we do have so history doesn't laugh at us. Let's engineer it to its inevitable depletion and not be even the tiniest bit guilty of having exacerbated the runout in the vain and futile hope that it might speed up IPv6 adoption. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*