> Have you read the analysis pieces on how, "Powerpoint doomed > the Columbia" (space shuttle)? > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/2 > 9/AR2005082901444.html
No but I have read the original report of the investigating committee into the Challenger disaster and I remember the cluttered slide which mentioned the O-ring problem. That's why I am not suggesting that the IETF start producing slideware, but instead suggesting that we need a summary prose RFC. > It doomed the Columbia, and killed seven astronauts. Not to mention Challenger which also killed astronauts. > > It matters when people make claims about IPv6 exhaustion based on > > 2000::3 > > > I hope that isn't how you are characterizing my proposal, or > the underlying premise. Did I mention your name? If I recall correctly it was Geoff Huston who raised concerns about IPv6 exhaustion which led to ARIN changing its policies to recommend that ISPs assign /56 blocks to small site users. > What I *am* concerned about, is maintaining 1 prefix per ASN, > to prevent routing table bloat. As long as the time of multiple IPv6 prefixes per ASN is delayed until IPv4 networks start disappearing from the global routing table, we are OK. I expect to see this begin in 5 years. > Rational folks can disagree on how much this needs to be contained. The vendors seem confident that there is no near-term issue here. > Basically, this boils down to whatever the WG chair, AD, and > consensus of the WG say it is. Precisely. It has to be discussed in the WG for consensus to form, one way or another. --Michael Dillon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
