On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >> Still, that is a considerable number of bits we'll have left when the dust >> settles and the RIR allocation rate drastically slows. > > Like it did for IPv4? ;) > > -Nathan >
It long since would have if ISPs didn't have to come back annually (or more frequently in many cases) to get additional addresses to support their growth. In IPv6, we should be looking to do 5 or 10 year allocations. We can afford to be fairly speculative in our allocations in order to preserve greater aggregation. In iPv4, the registries were constantly trying to balance shortage of addresses with shortage of routing table slots. In IPv6, we can focus on rational allocation for administrative purposes with some consideration given to routing table slots. It makes for a significantly different set of tradeoffs and optimizations that should be used in address policy. That is why I wrote 2011-3 and why we passed 2010-8. Owen
