On 6/4/13, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the better question is, what are we trying to preserve in IPv6. > Raw address space? No point for the forseeable future (40+ year protocol > lifetime? ...) No (well, only to a limited extent)
> Routing table growth? ... Yes. Yes, Definitely > Complexity of allocations? Arguably yes. Yes, Definitely. In the case of IPv6; slightly too small of an allocation can do much more damage than slightly too large of one. In other words: the logic is almost the opposite of what IPv6 was. A prefix longer than say a /32; should not be allowed to be issued, without evidence of "Justified non-need" [ because it is at too great a risk, that the applicant might some day need more addresses -- resulting in the use of an additional routing slot.] "Justified non-need" -- In essence, a guarantee signed in blood that no more space will ever needed, even in the event of a network redesign, acquisition, etc. Longer prefixes should require more justification that no more addresses will be needed, than shorter ones. -- -JH _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
