On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant address space.
There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with stupid allocation policies.
True. However, are you making the argument that any of the current or proposed allocation policies are, in fact, stupid in such a way that this is likely?
What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were they thinking".
But I can already say “what the F*** were they thinking about /60. I can kind of see it being valid on /56. I have a harder time arguing about /52s, but once you go that far is there any meaningful difference that makes it worth the trouble not going to /48? Besides, if /48s don’t become tomorrows what the f*** were they thinking, then it will be something else. I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they limited it to 640k.” Owen