[ppml] Those pesky EUI-64's causing a shortage of IPv6 space (Was: [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again)

[Paul_Vixie at isc.org]

> But why would anybody want  to 'ban' EUI-64 configured addresses?

because if it remains in the standard, then everybody will have to support
it and networks will have to be allocated on /64 boundaries for all of the
yet-unborn IPv6 capable SNMP-monitorable door knobs.

> Then again, on the other side, there are 536870912 (500 million) /32's in
> 2000::/3 alone. Which will really not easily fit in any routing table of any
> sort (but please prove me wrong ;)
> 
> Oh and when 2000::/3 is full, we can always pick one of the other 7 /3's
> which are not being used yet and 'try again'. Enough for even my kids their
> kids and their to play with.

agreed, and this is why i consider ULA to be a silly idea.  since we have
more IPv6 space than we can ever route, why would we mark any allocations
unroutable, even if we know what "routable" meant?

i can see a need for policy around giving each minimum allocation size its
own IPv6 address range, so that those of us who only want to accept TE
routes from our peers, can filter them out of our transit tables.  but i
cannot understand why we would declare that some allocations were never
supposed to come into the DFZ (breidbart's "the internet") at all, given
that there's no way we could ever route all the /32's we could allocate.