[arin-ppml] Portable address space vs. IPv6 auto-numbering

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Jun 11 19:03:26 EDT 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:23 AM
> To: Robin Whittle
> Cc: 'PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Portable address space vs. IPv6 
> auto-numbering

> while i am not a member of RRG, if the question is drawn as 
> clearly as that, my position would be, forget about IPv4.  
> the internet will have many more than 2^32 devices connected 
> to it simultaneously within our lifetimes, and i think we 
> should preserve the option of not using NAT in future 
> generations. therefore IPv4's growth has a glass ceiling 
> formed by its address size, and any effort that's put into 
> growing its routing table has a fixed return.

Standard road lane width on a modern US highway is determined
by the width of the butts of 2 horses.  This dates back oh,
a couple thousand years.

Is standard auto and road width optimal?  I don't know.  I do
know, though, that a hell of a lot of people have died in
SUV rollover crashes that would have not happened if the width
of their vehicle was, say, the width of 3 butts of horses.

Backwards compatability is not always smart, and can even
kill people.  Think unintended consequences.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list