Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?

[John Stracke]

Ian King wrote:

> I'd suggest that address assignment
> policy should keep process lightweight, so that it is realistic for
> businesses to regularly ask for assignments in more granular chunks; rather
> than grabbing a class A-size space "just in case", big users would be
> willing to request another 256 when the new branch office opens

Wasn't one of the design goals of IPv6 to make renumbering easier, so that
people could move from small assignments to large ones?

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |The cheapest, fastest, most reliable components|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|of a computer system are those that aren't     |
|                |there.--Gordon Bell                            |
\================================================================/