2 ms·
> They don't lose any investment in IPv4 address space What investment? IP addresses used to be free until we started running out, and I don't think anything o
by lxgr 8mo ago
> They don't lose any investment in IPv4 address space
What investment? IP addresses used to be free until we started running out, and I don't think anything of value would be lost for humanity as a whole if they became non-scarce again.
> they don't have to upgrade to all IPv6 supporting hardware
But they do, unless you're fine with maintaining an implicitly hierarchical network (or really two) forever.
> It's basically better NAT
How is it better? It also still requires NAT for every 4x host trying to reach a 4 only one, so it's exactly NAT.
> that eventually disappears
Driven by what mechanism?
- pocksuppet 8mo ago>> They don't lose any investment in IPv4 address space > What investment? IP addresses used to be free Well they're not now, so it's an investment. Any entity that has IP addresses doesn't want its competition to get IP addresses, even when this leads to bad outcomes overall.
- lxgr 8mo agoAnd would you say this is a dynamic worth preserving by policy?
- pocksuppet 8mo agoIt doesn't matter whether it's worth preserving. It matters whether it will be preserved.