[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Bill Darte]

Tony said....
> From another perspective, 'aggressive conservation' == 
> 'because I can'. There needs to be a balance here and the 
> current balance point is set to meet the original goals for 
> the protocol. We can always change the goals after the fact, 
> but that will cause confusion, and confusion always results 
> in delay. I can already hear the screams about lack of need 
> being the delay, so save the bits. It is unfortunate but we 
> are likely to reach a crisis before people wake up, and then 
> the move will be painful. In any case reasonable stewardship 
> allows for innovation as well as managing resources for the 
> long term. If the 'we will run out' perspective of those who 
> want to micro-manage end side allocations were applied to oil 
> we would have strict rationing, because as we all know oil is 
> a finite resource and we have to make sure it is available 
> 1200 years from now...

and in both systems...protocols and oil....there is massive initia because
of existing investment, comfort of status quo, powerbase, fear or change,
risk avoidance, etc. which means that no significant change to any large
embedded system is possible without crisis....the bigger the system, the
greater the initia, the longer the delay. Period.


> 
> As far as private addresses go, yes we should be using them 
> for private purposes. IPv6 implementations specifically 
> expect to have multiple addresses simultaneously so they can 
> use private addresses for local functions while public 
> addresses are available for public functions. These addresses 
> are not necessarily for address conservation, but would have 
> that effect for those organizations that have a large number 
> of devices that will never be publicly routed (like the 
> management functions on DOCSIS 3 equipment). They also allow 
> vehicles to move between docking points without disrupting 
> internal communications. Yes they exist and should be used, 
> but they are not going to make a significant difference in 
> address consumption.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
>