[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Bill Darte]

 >
> > Yes egregious waste of the address resource should be 
> avoided, but so
> should
> > miserly conservation
> 
> Looks to me like the debate is about the values of 
> "egregious" and "miserly." Personally, I tend toward 
> conservatism, on the basis that it's easier to loosen the 
> sphincter than tighten it.
> 
> Lee
> 
> > Tony
> 

But is 'misery' conservation the appropriate contrasting element.  Is it
that anything less than 65K subnets of 64 bits is 'miserly' or is the
argument that that anything less may cause 'bureaucracy of address
administration' when sites run out of addresses and have to come back?

Bill Darte