On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 09:23 -0400, George Metz wrote:
It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6 depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner than one might expect.
The big difference between IPv4 initial policies and IPv6 initial policies is that with IPv4 there were no policies to speak of in the early days. Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all of Vietnam got one /26. With IPv6 there is a policy, it's been there from day one, it's well thought out, and if followed will see everyone (yes EVERYONE) getting vastly more address space than they are ever likely to need *even if our wildest expectations are exceeded*. Four billion isn't really that much. It never was. It was obvious decades ago that it would run out. IPv6 was designed with that in mind. That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant address space. Restrictions like /56 instead of /48 are unnecessary limitations - limitations that the protocol was designed to remove! Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882