Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam () gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > > > 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?
>
> What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were they thinking".

But I can already say “what the F*** were they thinking about /60.
I can kind of see it being valid on /56.
I have a harder time arguing about /52s, but once you go that far is there any meaningful difference that makes it 
worth the trouble not going to /48?

Besides, if /48s don’t become tomorrows what the f*** were they thinking, then it will be something else.

I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM 
instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they limited it to 640k.”

Owen