I don't know you as well as I should :) I should say I'm not that interested in selling something that is both free and 'politically' loaded.
People have made up their minds, they'll pick it up or they won't. No "skin off my teeth" at all. Implementation details matter to those who care. They have their reasons, I'm not one to question them.
One of the things I like about v6 is it allows us to give up the charade or vanity of addressing. At least minify it. One can define classes of networks and simply identify hosts by MAC (or FQDN assuming an AAAA record).
I already have to tote that information around. Not having a v4 address that just duplicates the role of identity, while risking conflict, may offer benefits in some scenarios.
Now... 'conflict' is how BGP anycast literally works. Two or more hosts announce the same location. There are perfectly valid reasons to still use v4, neither precludes the other.
I don't know you as well as I should :) I should say I'm not that interested in selling something that is both free and 'politically' loaded.
People have made up their minds, they'll pick it up or they won't. No "skin off my teeth" at all. Implementation details matter to those who care. They have their reasons, I'm not one to question them.
One of the things I like about v6 is it allows us to give up the charade or vanity of addressing. At least minify it. One can define classes of networks and simply identify hosts by MAC (or FQDN assuming an AAAA record).
I already have to tote that information around. Not having a v4 address that just duplicates the role of identity, while risking conflict, may offer benefits in some scenarios.
Now... 'conflict' is how BGP anycast literally works. Two or more hosts announce the same location. There are perfectly valid reasons to still use v4, neither precludes the other.