Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:36:09 -0500

> From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>

    > More realistically, some might consider IPv4 address allocation
    > policies as discouraging the growth of the Internet (I am not among
    > them)
    > ...
**  > Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address
**  > allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be
**  > refused allocations of IPv6 addresses.

Holy smoke! That's really major.

This is the first I've heard of this (although it makes technical sense to
try and avoid unaggregable allocations). I hadn't realized the registries
were trying to guard against routing table bloat as well as address space
exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided?

Wow.

	Noel

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:18:45 -0800

Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I hadn't realized the registries

Miss a few meetings and all kinds of things start happening.... :)

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:54:49 -0800

Noel,

>Holy smoke! That's really major.

Huh?  This really shouldn't (at this late date) be a surprise to 
anyone.  RIRs allocate TLAs (or sub-TLAs) to "TLA Registries".  TLAs are 
the only prefixes that are supposed to be in the "default free zone" 
routing tables.  Ergo...

>exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided?

Ever since the RIRs existed?  See goal number 2 of section 1 of 
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2050.txt or section 2.2.2 of 
http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/IPv6.txt.  As to how it was decided, my 
guess would be "by default".

Rgds,
-drc