B) I agree there are inconveniences and complications with using private addresses in ipv4. But it seems to be necessary thrift in the ipv4 world of rapidly expiring address space; using public routable ipv4 addresses for machines which do not communicate with the public internet is perhaps a luxury we can not afford, even in cases where to do otherwise is inconvenient or complicated.
These /8's have been historically been used internally there's no reason they should be handed back. Handing them back would just prolong the migration to IPv6 for limited benefit.
I imagine the only reason you would use a IPv6 private address is if you didn't have allocated global ones. It's just replacing no chance of collision with some chance of collision.
You are defending the broken windows fallacy. Wikipedia can explain better than I do, but the TLDR is simply : you are defending useless destruction of value, the end result is that everyone's poorer, nothing else.
No, just the opposite. There would be real costs for those companies that have /8s to move away from them. Meanwhile the gains would be minimal - at best it might allow some organizations to put off moving to IPv6 for a few months.
Comments
A) As I understand it, IPv6 still has private addresses, although they contain a random element to attempt to minimize collision when private networks are merged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#Private_IPv6_ad...
B) I agree there are inconveniences and complications with using private addresses in ipv4. But it seems to be necessary thrift in the ipv4 world of rapidly expiring address space; using public routable ipv4 addresses for machines which do not communicate with the public internet is perhaps a luxury we can not afford, even in cases where to do otherwise is inconvenient or complicated.
These /8's have been historically been used internally there's no reason they should be handed back. Handing them back would just prolong the migration to IPv6 for limited benefit.
I imagine the only reason you would use a IPv6 private address is if you didn't have allocated global ones. It's just replacing no chance of collision with some chance of collision.
You are defending the broken windows fallacy. Wikipedia can explain better than I do, but the TLDR is simply : you are defending useless destruction of value, the end result is that everyone's poorer, nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
No, just the opposite. There would be real costs for those companies that have /8s to move away from them. Meanwhile the gains would be minimal - at best it might allow some organizations to put off moving to IPv6 for a few months.
Yes, but they were a late addition, postdating IPv6 by 10 years, and aren't meant to be used lightly.
IPv6 is designed for easy & automatic renumbering so there's less need to hold on to a specific prefix as an "island of stability".