-----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jan Ingvoldstad > Sent: 12 May 2015 14:18
> Hi again, Matthew, and thanks for answering. No problem at all - it is good to have this sort of open discussion and whilst it risks drifting off-topic I do fully concede that a proposal such as this cannot be divorced from the general issue of IPv6 addressing, usage and conservation etc. > What I do think is a problem, though, is that IPv6 address space is > considered so plentiful that we're repeating the mistakes of when we > thought the IPv4 address space was plentiful. Understood. There is always the risk of the proverbial '640k is enough for anyone' situation occurring. Analogies can be dangerous however if the nuances that set the situations apart aren't given due consideration. > However, these things have a way of sliding down a slippery slope, and the > IPv6 address space is most likely what we're going to be stuck > with for our systems' lifetimes. The prospective system lifetimes are long, > perhaps on the order of hundreds of years. > > And that's actually something we need to keep in mind when setting policy > today. I do fully take your point, and in making this proposal I have no desire to ride roughshod over this very valid concern. 'Finding the balance' is the key even if that might be difficult, not least given that success or otherwise can only be determined at some point in the future and perhaps only with the benefit of hindsight. On the subject of balance however, I cannot ignore the fact that we cannot realistically progress with meaningful IPv6 migration until a reasonably mature addressing strategy (with associated allocation to support it) is in place. Regards, Mathew
