On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 17:27 Ronald F. Guilmette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message < > camdxq5mbe2dn9awxho-h-p8g3yqwbaak-rxr7uqmtac5pbt...@mail.gmail.com> > Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Talking about v6 exhaustion is probably better suited for the IETF. Either > >way, we'll all be dead if/when it happens... > > Speak for yourself! I have plans to still be here in 2050! (And I even > hold > out some vague hope that some encoding of myself will still be around in > time > to see humanity's construction of its first Dyson sphere.) I took Marty as referring to RFC2050 not the year 2050. RFC2050 made conservation a primary consideration for IPv4 allocation policies, even at the cost of operational complexity. With IPv6 we shouldn’t be profligate, but conservation doesn’t need to the primary consideration either, operational simplicity can come first, including a multi-year supply on initial allocation. Thanks > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
