Closure?

[J. Scott Marcus]

>> ... If we reach this scenario within our childrens' lifetime, we will
have failed.
>
>	Then the developers of IPv4 failed. IPv6 should be such a 
>	success disaster... :)

They DID fail, at least in this respect.  They could have made the address
space larger, as did the designers of XNS.

But it was early days, and it was hard to see how the Internet was going to
grow.  At this point, we KNOW that it's going to be whopping big.  We do
not have the same excuse.

By the time IPv6 exhausts, it will be deeply embedded into countless
devices, and into the fabric of our society itself.



>> The assumption that this migration entails only the implementation of new
>> allocation policies is flawed.  Much of the deployed gear -- perhaps most
>> of it -- will break if this happens.
>
>	Allow me to trot out a varient of O'Dells law.  
>	"The installed base is insignificant."

By the time we exhaust IPv6 space, the rate of growth will be much lower,
probably single digit percentage points per year.  In any case, the
installed base is clearly paramount -- consider the economics of network
externalities.  That's why there are such strong first mover effects in
this industry.  And that's why it has been so difficult to deploy IPv6 in
the first place.



>> Again, the recommendation is probably workable.  I am worried about the
>> underlying overconfidence.
>
>	I agree, its a bit a the cheeky side but I can see how it can 
>	work and give us some room to stretch. Given that ARIN is the sole
>	remaining holdout, it might be easier to kowtow now, with reservations
>	noted and then collect enough empirical data to beat the I* senseless
>	with their lack of operational vision. :)

... so at the end of the day, we agree.

I don't see this as a question of kowtowing.  If I thought their
recommendation were unworkable, I would be perfectly happy to be the only
standout.  As it is, I think that it's good enough.  We can move forward
with it "with reservations noted".