On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 20:15 David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
No. I meant the year 2050. But thank you. :-) Ron, true. We’ll all be here beyond 2050. I hope. :-) Cheers, Marty
_______________________________________________ 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.
