Hi all,
Thank you so much for your advice and comments on the list,
and joining discussion in the policy sig session.
This time, this proposal did not get consensus, and I'll consider
to divide this proposal into two parts.
Again, I really appreciate your participation in policy discussions.
an
On Sep 17, 2014, at 7:23 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏)
wrote:
>
> Hi Skeeve,
>
> Thank you for your comment!
>
> From: Skeeve Stevens
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6
> default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep
IMHO, there are two ways to waste address space. One worse (again, IMHO) than
the other.
One mechanism is to distribute it so liberally that it causes a detriment to
those who need it later. This is what is being argued by Dean and others.
However, I don’t think that’s possible with what I prop
