As Jens points out: This has been discussed extensively in several places before, and the NANOG list have left no stone unturned. :-)
I found this thread rather interesting, albeit long: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg00756.html On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 17:18 +0200, Ziv Leyes wrote: > If you could go back in time and ask the guys that planned the IPv4 > why didn't they do it larger they would tell you there is no way we'll > ever need more than that, right? They realised pretty fast that the initial design didn't match the growing popularity. That's what happens. The problem is that it has taken us close to 30 years (!) since we discovered the issue to handle to the situation. And we're not even there yet. > We're now facing the same situation, we can't even imagine what can > happen in 20 years from now, as I'm already hearing about giving every > milk cartoon a /64 which won't be recycled. Though I would side with you on the "let's be conservative" approach, the argument you present here isn't really relevant, neither to IPv4 nor to IPv6. If we were to assign /64 subnets to "end-stations" like milk cartons, the whole point of "subnets" vanishes. No hierarchical scheme (suitable for routing) fits that purpose as far as I can think. RFID would probably fit better. All in all I would personally prefer that we do _something_ and start seriously deploying/using IPv6, and then in parallel continue discussing address allocation policy et cetera. :-D -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
