Re: Time to claw some back
"What's the point in trying to claw back IPv4 addresses? It would not fix the problem, just delay it for another couple of years."
I'd submit that Plan A -- everybody grumbles a bit them and switches to IPv6.-- does not seem to be working. In reality, many users can't "upgrade" because third parties like their ISP don't support IPV6. Others lack resources to upgrade. Many users feel, possibly correctly, that the minimal security provided by IPV4 plus NAT is better than not having "NAT security". A lot of stuff that purportedly supports IPV6 doesn't. Less than a year and a half ago, Microsoft had to fix Windows 10 before they could change their headquarters network to IPV6. Most users don't have the resources to fix their OS(es) or their hardware. There may be other valid reasons. Whatever ... IPV6 adoption is glacial at best.
I'd submit that a few years to develop and implement a Plan B that -- unlike Plan A -- realistically addresses the needs/desires of users might be a really good idea.
And a Plan C developed in parallel with Plan B in case Plan B doesn't work out, might not be a bad idea either.