On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a more conservative numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try other alternatives).
Owen
Owen,
We have had this conversation before, but I just wanted to put my two cents out there again.
I dont view /3 as a safety valve. I view it as a possible escape pod from a sinking ship.
If it needs to be utilized, the entire world has been dealt a large disservice - something great pains should be taken to avoid. I doubt it would be an "oops, ime sorry, no harm done".
It should not be a factor to add risk into allocation design.
Furthermore, any allocation holder trying the same trick of reserving a greater than half of their block for the safety valve in their numbering scheme might quickly discover that their block is a bit more cramped than they thought it would be.
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
Joe
Decades... I think that a combination of other factors will likely conspire within decades to render the current IPv6 protocol obsolete and drive adoption of a replacement protocol. I don't know what those factors are, but, historically, few things in technology have stood the test of decades. Almost nothing has stood the test of centuries. Owen