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 PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:42 PM To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppml] Why ULA-* will not harm the DFZ On 10-Jul-2007, at 17:48, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
