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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
