[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Andrew Dul wrote:

> I would expect all those who didn't support the policy on the grounds 
> of routing/FIB table growth also to object to the original 2005-1 text.

I think that its fairly clear that if all those who use ipv4 move to
ipv6 the number of routes in ipv6 would be considerably smaller then
with ipv4 simply because we'd have less organizations using and announcing 
different ip blocks and instead would have mostly one ipv6 block per 
organization.

In that sense while too open a policy might pose a risk with future
growth of ipv6, it is considerably more important in our immediate future 
to actually start using and help with migration to ipv6 in the next 10 
years if possible. And unfortunately shim6 is not a solution and many 
realize it so I think open policy for multi-homing must be done for at 
least the period of migration.

And yes, I realize that the trade-off of this is possible inequality
similar to early ipv4 adaption since if we decide to change policy
later to limit those who qualify, this would mean early adapters have 
certain advantage.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net