Sheesh

With regards to a larger, yet still finite, number space than what
IPv4 (2^32 host addresses) currently accommodates, this is at least
one of benefits of IPv6 (2^128), at least from the perspective which
you refer to below.

However, it is in everyone's best interest to be immediately concerned
with the IPv4 address allocation issues, rather than jumping to another,
altogether different, problem.

Also, I'm curious. Do people actually believe that if and/or when
we do begin the transition to IPv6 that we will not be faced with
the same issues? If we have a larger address space, do you think
that everything will simply be a free-for-all?

Sheesh is right.

Scalability seems to be a phrase that I've seen tossed around a lot
lately with very little evidence that anyone actually understands it.

- paul

At 06:21 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote:

>Not to sound like Mr. Flemming but one thing strikes me as a serious
>oversight, the lack of thought towards the future. Rather than overprice a
>non-scalable resource, and basically screw everyone in the process. Why
>isn't something being done to create something more scalable and useable?
>I've seen this topic brought up once or twice and I have yet to see anyone
>even attempt to reply to it. We've seen lots of 'ARIN SUCKS' or 'ARIN RULES'
>messages, this is dandy (if you like the moronic politics involved) but ARIN
>is _NOT_ the solution. As the internet grow IP space is only going to become
>more and more scarce and then your troubles will be even more. Now I'm no
>genius, and I can't provide the answers.. what I want to know is why the
>people that can aren't. You've got dozens of brilliant minds spewing their
>politics back and forth rather than spending productive hours creating a
>new, more powerful, more scalable resource which can be enjoyed by everyone
>without the excessive costs and basic stupidity we're seeing now.
>