I've mentioned this previously. Without government-mandated standards, implementation could take years. We apply this approach to numerous areas; why should IP be an exception?
replies(5):
If you want the government to mandate standards, vote with your feet and move to China where it has been mandated.
I thought the point of the article is that perhaps IPv6 is ultimately unnecessary: worse is better?
Why are we engineers so attracted to authoritarianism? The idea of just telling everyone to use the new version seems attractive to me too. Then again I often deeply admire practical engineering compromises. (edited: clarified)
That doesn't sound like agreement.
Agreement is how we have arrived at the imperfect solution we have now... Agreement between various technical and non-technical parties.
Similarly, mandating an Internet Protocol that doesn't require centralization (you know, NAT) and renting an address from the Big Boys (AWS etc) sounds like a perfectly sensible decision to me.
> Agreement is how we have arrived at the imperfect solution we have now...
I disagree. What we have now is not an explicit agreement, it's a status quo which can be broken by an external force.
Followed by another sentence.
Ending with a quote that implies a worldview that the government should use violence without any balance "it's a status quo broken by an external force".