Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog () bitfreak org> wrote:

> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
> >  sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space exhaustion.  IPv4's address space was too small for 
> such large thinking.

The first dicussion I could find about ipv4 runnout  in email archives is circa 1983

>  IPv6 is far beyond enough to use such allocation policies.

There are certain tendencies towards profligacy that might prematurely influence the question of ipv6 exhaustion and we 
should be on guard against them… allocating enough /48s as part of direct assignments  is probably not one of them.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail