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
