Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
>
> > No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
> >
> > However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a more conservative
> > numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try other alternatives).
> >
> > Owen
>
>
> Owen,
>
> We have had this conversation before, but I just wanted to put my two cents out there again.
>
> I dont view /3 as a safety valve. I view it as a possible escape pod from a sinking ship.
>
> If it needs to be utilized, the entire world has been dealt a large disservice - something great pains should be 
> taken to avoid. I doubt it would be an "oops, ime sorry, no harm done".
>
> It should not be a factor to add risk into allocation design.
>
> Furthermore, any allocation holder trying the same trick of reserving a greater than half of their block for the 
> safety valve in their numbering scheme might quickly discover that their block is a bit more cramped than they 
> thought it would be.
>
> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>
> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
>
> Joe

Decades... I think that a combination of other factors will likely conspire within decades to render the current
IPv6 protocol obsolete and drive adoption of a replacement protocol.  I don't know what those factors are,
but, historically, few things in technology have stood the test of decades. Almost nothing has stood the test
of centuries.

Owen