[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Bill Darte]

 > 
> > Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > In general the RIR community has become so accustomed to
> > conservatism that they can't see any reason to even consider 
> > that they might be killing off innovation in the process.
> 
> You attribute a motive where I don't believe there is enough 
> evidence to do so.  
> 
> Is it possible that we're thoughtfully concerned, rather than 
> reacting out of habit?  It may be that active members of PPML 
> have a breadth of imagination that allows for the possibility 
> of address space exhaustion.
> 
> Lee
> 
>  
> > Tony
> > 
> > 
> 

If it were easy to abandon a pervasive standard, we would be further along
the demand curve for v6.  Fact is, anyone with enough v4 addresses and a
functioning environment delivering sufficient value is not interested in
change....net value of v6 today is more addresses.  That's with a billion
addresses announced.

When its many trillions of v6 addresses announced and several more global
layers of integration and economic foundation in the mix, the chance of
migration to something new is gonna be near impossible. So I think the
notion of looking at v6 with a sunset horizon of 60 or 100 years is not
prudent.  Plan for the long, long, long haul.  Then if something new begins
to emerge....that next promise of networking nirvana, where we'll never run
out of <fill in the blank>... and the IS and new way of changing....SO
CHANGE.... But, in the absence of experience that says we can just 'change'
when things get difficult, prudence says conservation of the limiting
benefit of v6 seems reasonable to me.  If we are going to apply innovation,
then apply it to ways to achieve the renumbering promise, to make a routing
environment that scales so that end-site v6 allocations won't break
things.... 

Bill Darte