> On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:32 , David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote: >> Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US >> organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all >> of Vietnam got one /26. > > IIRC (I was running APNIC at the time), when the first organization from > Vietnam approached APNIC for address space, we allocated a /22 to them and > reserved the /16 from which that allocation was made for other ISPs in > Vietnam (as was the policy back then). > >> That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant >> address space. > > There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with stupid > allocation policies. >
True. However, are you making the argument that any of the current or proposed allocation policies are, in fact, stupid in such a way that this is likely? If so, which ones? If not, then how is that relevant to the current discussion of what to do in terms of deployment given existing policies? Owen
