[ppml] IPv6>>32

>> The net result is that we're poised to burn through a /1 to a /4
>> of the IPv6 address space in the next 60 years based on our best
>> current guesses.  This makes me extremely nervous.
>>
>
> I'm sorry but I cannot understand this sentiment at all. IPv4 has
> not even been deployed for 60 years yet and nevertheless we still
> have spare addresses and we have created and deployed an IPv4
> replacement.

[...]

> Sorry, but I am not going to run a DHCP server on my mobile
> phone, on my fridge, on my TV or my stereo or my home lighting
> system. I won't be running a DHCP server on my home environment
> monitors, on my furnace or on any of my automobile networks
> either. I won't be running a DHCP server on my shower control
> system or my bathtub or my heated toilet with robotic sanitary
> arm. (Don't laugh, this toilet is already on the market in Japan).
> In short, I think that you are starting from wrong premises in
> your use of the word "host" and "site".

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused by this apparent contradiction.   
Are you approaching IPv6 from the perspective that it is going to  
allow us to deploy IP stacks on hundreds of new devices per home, and  
per person, or are you approaching it from the perspective that IPv6  
is just meant to give us breathing room in our deployment of current  
applications of IPv4?  If the former, then I don't understand how you  
can question that the potential exists for us to use up a significant  
chunk of the v6 space in the next 60 years.

Matt Pounsett
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20050509/64b5a18c/attachment.bin