On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > 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
Decades... I think that a combination of other factors will likely conspire within decades to render the current IPv6 protocol obsolete and drive adoption of a replacement protocol. I don't know what those factors are, but, historically, few things in technology have stood the test of decades. Almost nothing has stood the test of centuries. Owen
