Re: the race to the bottom problem

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2020, 08:03 Nick Hilliard, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Bob Hinden wrote on 07/11/2020 17:41:
> >> The logical consequence is that we end up at /128. This is
> >> particularly risky because any operator with lots of experience
> >> with IPv4 will find "one /128 per host" obvious, expected and
> >> natural. One device has one IP address, right? And once get to that
> >> point, we'll need to bring back NAT in order to extend further.
> >> That would pretty much make the entire transition to IPv6
> >> pointless. We might as well have stayed with IPv4.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> there's a string of generalisations and assumptions going on here, and
> like many arguments which use reductio ad absurdum, I fear that the
> outcome shows the absurdity of the line of argument more than the issue
> being argued about.
>

They're not assumptions if you have first hand experience of the history of
the rise of IPv4 address conservation measures, and can remember what IPv4
addressing practices and mindsets were before IPv4 addresses became
precious.

The address conservation mindset is even more distinct and distinguishable
when you've actually taught it through teaching IPv4 VLSM in the mid 90s.




> Nick
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>