> > I don't have to use my imagination to think of ways that additional > bits on the network address side would have been advantageous -- all I > need is my memory. In the 90s, it was suggested that a growing number > of dual-homed networks cluttering the DFZ could be handled more > efficiently by setting aside certain address space for customers who > dual-homed to pairs of the largest ISPs. The customer routes would > then not need to be carried by anyone except those two ISPs, who are > earning money from the customer. This never happened for a variety of > good reasons, but most of the technical reasons would have gone away > with the adoption of IPv6, as it was envisioned in the mid-90s. >
I think that can still be very realistically achieved within the existing available address space. > There seems to be a lot of imagination being used for SOHO networks, > and none on the ISP side. What a shame that is. > I disagree. > Owen, I do agree with the point you made off-list, that if huge > mistakes are made now and the IPv6 address space is consumed more > rapidly than the community is comfortable with, there should be plenty > of opportunity to fix that down the road. > Precisely, so, let's risk a small chance of a mistake here now so that we don't cut off innovation so early. Owen