I think my main point on the first response I made to this string you started has taken a curve ball. I had no intentions of turning this into a conservation debate (though I do think it something to keep in mind). The main point I made was to use them and complete the needed documentation needed or decide to use them for something else. Which is inline with you saying we should make decisions in a finite timescale rather than deferring decisions forever out.
Marla -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:01 AM To: Azinger, Marla Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppml] Why ULA-* will not harm the DFZ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
