[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

[John Osmon]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:35:19PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> [...] I understand that the routing table growth is the failing
> point of v6, so I know *why* I have such a large space, but it is
> really upsetting when people are already using the word 'hoarding'
> when some of us can not get a space suitable for our size, but receive
> something that is exponentially beyond the scope of comprehension, let
> alone above suitable.

Two questions hit me while I was reading this thread:
 -- hoarding -- is it hoarding to keep the address block you
    were assigned, even it if is bigger than you wanted?  How
    many legacy holders would have been happy with a /26 - /29 if
    such blocks had been available?
 -- address run-out -- How much longer could the existing address
    space last if we could allocate a block of space that is
    appropriately sized for an end-user's needs?

Yes -- I realize that I'm playing fast and loose with other people's
routing slots.  Which is worse?  Running out of address space?  Or
running into limitations of current router implementations?

If we play towards the router implementations, aren't we setting
routing policy de facto?