I don't have to use my imagination to think of ways that additional bits on the network address side would have been advantageous -- all I need is my memory. In the 90s, it was suggested that a growing number of dual-homed networks cluttering the DFZ could be handled more efficiently by setting aside certain address space for customers who dual-homed to pairs of the largest ISPs. The customer routes would then not need to be carried by anyone except those two ISPs, who are earning money from the customer. This never happened for a variety of good reasons, but most of the technical reasons would have gone away with the adoption of IPv6, as it was envisioned in the mid-90s.
I think that can still be very realistically achieved within the existing available address space.
There seems to be a lot of imagination being used for SOHO networks, and none on the ISP side. What a shame that is.
I disagree.
Owen, I do agree with the point you made off-list, that if huge mistakes are made now and the IPv6 address space is consumed more rapidly than the community is comfortable with, there should be plenty of opportunity to fix that down the road.
Precisely, so, let's risk a small chance of a mistake here now so that we don't cut off innovation so early. Owen