Subject: RE: [ppml] Why ULA-* will not harm the DFZ

From: "Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:43:46 -0400

I am not surprised that conservation isn't the number one priority.  I just don't think its wise to ignore conservation.  We cant predict Ipv6 consumption and we don't even know what will exist for technology in the future that will require IP Addresses.

Cheers!
Marla Azinger

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Abley [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:42 PM
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ppml] Why ULA-* will not harm the DFZ

On 10-Jul-2007, at 17:48, <[email-masked]>  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 2. Or release space FC00::/8 for another type of use (becuase
>> sitting on the shelf is wasteful)
>
> This is a good example of ossified IPv4 thinking. IPv6 is different  
> from
> IPv4. It is not just IPv4 with more address bits. It is not  
> wasteful to
> leave IPv6 address ranges sitting on the shelf any more than it is
> wasteful to assign a /48 prefix to a homeowner.

In fact, I was thinking as I typed in my precarious train of logic  
the other evening that one of the nice features of IPv6 is that you  
can take an enormous chunk of addresses for use as an experiment like  
this, and not have to worry to hard about reclaiming them if the  
experiment turns out to go nowhere.

Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:01:25 -0400

On 11-Jul-2007, at 12:43, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> I am not surprised that conservation isn't the number one  
> priority.  I just don't think its wise to ignore conservation.  We  
> cant predict Ipv6 consumption and we don't even know what will  
> exist for technology in the future that will require IP Addresses.

I think with 128 bits there's a middle ground between ruthless  
conservation and "a /48 for every fridge"

But I guess my point was really that we shouldn't necessarily expect  
to guess right first time, every time, and it's nice to have some  
latitude to be able to make decisions in a finite timescale rather  
than deferring decisions for ever out of fear that they might be wrong.

Joe