At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
>as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
>priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
>than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
>providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
>This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
>the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
someone stating that more address space is needed.
I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
in the top five, at least not in the near term.
I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address
space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of
address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally,
introduces a whole new set of problems.
Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing
the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation
policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation
policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure
that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have
created a more critical problem.
If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
intricacies in the global routing system.