> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>>> That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant >>>> address space. >>> >>> There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with >>> stupid allocation policies. >> >> True. However, are you making the argument that any of the current or >> proposed allocation policies are, in fact, stupid in such a way that this is >> likely? > > What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were > they thinking".
But I can already say “what the F*** were they thinking about /60. I can kind of see it being valid on /56. I have a harder time arguing about /52s, but once you go that far is there any meaningful difference that makes it worth the trouble not going to /48? Besides, if /48s don’t become tomorrows what the f*** were they thinking, then it will be something else. I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they limited it to 640k.” Owen
