True. But other than outright regulation / fines... I'm not sure how to hit the right people. Right now we have:

a) ISPs being sluggish
b) Some network people at companies being obstinate
c) Companies being irresponsible about their own conversion
d) The government not leading the effort (though in all fairness the Obama administration is better than I would expect on IPv6 issues).

Makes sense. This is where I wish ARIN were pushing much harder to break the chicken and egg issue.

I hope ARIN doesn't reclaim. Let the shortages create the pain.

That's true. One big advantage of IPv6 wii be the ability to create an essentially infinite number of external IPs associated with VMs / containers / microservices.

They did that. ARIN didn't want to raise prices they just blew through their IPv4s. So ISPs will need to buy them from each other rather while IPv6 addresses will given out for free.

The first step is the carriers / ISPs getting everyone an IPv6 address. The first thing to break after that will be geolocation as the carriers start pooling their home / small business IPv4 addresses and allocating them from a single common pool (so all Verizon originates in West Virginia). That will give companies a reason to switch their consumer internet.

In terms of B2B... I suspect most companies will change most stuff. However longer terms routing tables are getting too fragmented for some many routers and there are overlapping addresses (i.e. we don't have 1 address goes to one place anymore, especially in the 3rd world). As that gets worse IPv4 will break and companies will change.

The big question is: why haven't the telcos moved home / small business over yet?

Why do you need multiple IPs on a machine with 1 nic? Besides the last 64 is going to be the MAC address.

AFAIk the 2001:678::/29 provider independent space are just supposed to be a bunch of /48 relays.

For residential users on IPv6 they can likely now have a fixed IP (or a /60) now. So it would only change when they their home ISP.

A local internet registry at smallest only gets a /32. Which means they can only do 65k homes which would be too small. Now admittedly if they are getting a /20 (maximum allocation) will be fine. But that means you can only have 256 locals in each regional (i.e. each /12) and that's likely too few. There is tons of room but it isn't infinite.

    I'm a fan of a /60 for homes. I guess you are right there is enough room to make a /48 work but that seems like needlessly throwing away a lot of bits.

You really shouldn't be using NAT with IPv6. The idea is one machine, one address. Given DNS I'm not sure why you would want fixed fully external IPs. But if you do you want to have some fixed external addresses do it via. some sort of relay where you have an external server at a telco colo with a very long term address and then the telco wires it back to your server (or just host your server with the telco). I think part of the idea of IPv6 is simplifying the routing tables so the old any address can go to any physical location should die. Routers should as much as possible be making routing choices not based on lookups buy literally picking one or more address bits and assigning them to a physical wire, very low latency routing.

You sure that's residential? Why would a home need 65k subnets?

The FSF does not include those qualifiers. Their statements as written are misleading.

For example "regulating every use of movies downloaded from iTunes" clearly is meant to imply "all movies". If they said "regulated every use of some movies.." that would be better. Even better would be to put the onus where it belongs, "allowing the system to implement the regulations publishers request on the use of movies allowing for either/both/neither of time locks & machines locks ". You see the difference?

As for the FSF being right on software they aren't right they don't include the qualifiers.

Their statements are simply false.

You state that without anything to back it up. I'm using the standard X11 that comes with Debian just fine,

Well yeah of course you are. It isn't 1993. Back then you wouldn't have been. The X11 was a disaster. 2015 is not the early 1990s. As I mentioned XFree86 became the standard well over a dozen years ago.

You started out saying, "systems that were once free become in practice proprietary and unfree even though there is some free almost worthless version hanging out under the BSD license". Yet it served Linux fine for over 20 years, while most of the commercial Unix's died out. Your point is invalid.

Are you that dishonest or just stupid? X Windows is invented in 1984. X11 comes out in 1987 and at that point commercial Xs are viable and introducing all sorts of cool features many of which are still not in XFree86. XFree86 starts in 1991 because the BSD licensed version of X is worthless. Linuxes are using commercial Xs mostly. XFree86 doesn't become really usable until 1995 or 1996 and even then it is just providing the basics still well behind the commercial X's. Your 20 year time period starts with an XFree86 that is nowhere near what SUN or SGI have and by then the the UNIX workstation market is on the decline. Linux misses the conversion and that instead goes to Windows NT. And the reason for that failure of X is the BSD license allowing commercial Xs not to share back. It isn't until the early 2000s that Linuxs have caught up with where the commercial UNIXes were in the early 1990s. The BSD version of X11 didn't serve Linux it crippled it.

Stop posting stupidity. Deal with the reality of the world. And if you don't know it, look it up.

You seem to think because a proprietary fork exists that counts as a failure.

No a proprietary fork that becomes the norm is a failure. That's the definition. That's what you are debating that BSD protects free software and keeps it free.

As for Apache if the value adds on top of Apache are proprietary than Apache is not thriving.

Well that's the question which is his objective. Having a non-proprietery operating system for mobile (Android with something playing the role of Google Play) on other people's hardware with no DRM doesn't require the FSF to get into the hardware business. Obviously they can create a phone using Replicant. And let's assume they can hit volumes of around 200k per 6mo which is about where they need to be to be not losing money. What does that buy them? It does nothing to change culture.

As far as I'm concerned RMS has always aimed for more mainstream not just hobbyist usage. That's why for example the GNU project tackled COBOL so early while doing other hacker friendly stuff later. He wanted GNU to be mainstream (not that the COBOL helped but the attitude of aiming for mainstream did). A Replicant based obscure phone that under a million people use does almost nothing for the cause of freedom.