On 23/01/2011, at 3:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I agree with Randy - extending the sugar rush now to appease a few providers who haven't made the effort to even start providing IPv6 to customers is rewarding the wrong kind of behaviour. It's just going to allow then to justify delaying IPv6 rollout to their customer bases rather than accepting that resources are finite. >> > Avoid appeasing them now so that they have to pay more for it later. Interesting attitude. Not particularly useful in the grand scheme of things. As opposed to allowing them to continue avoiding IPv6 transition by giving them more IPv4 space now? Money, apparently, talks, so by driving the cost and difficulty of obtaining space up in the future, it'll encourage transition earlier. Giving away space now because of a dodgy assumption that previous behaviour is going to be accurate post final /8 is not going to drive transition - it'll delay it and place at risk industry transition by doing so. I'd be pretty angry if this space was just dropped on the front of people's CGNAT boxes by people who don't have any useful IPv6 deployment.