Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
On 10/07/2012, at 9:52 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> IPv6 requires thinking quite a bit differently. In IPv4 we weren't giving a /16 to every end-site. In IPv6, we are.
>
> It's not about number of devices at the end. It's about number of subnets and about having enough bits to plan for automating hierarchical topologies at the end-site.
>
> It's about having better capabilities than we had in IPv4, not merely expanding the IPv4 paradigm and its foibles and limitations into a wider bitfield.
>
> If you inflict a limitation on your subscribers that prevents them from taking advantage of innovations and improvements in technology in the future, or, worse, prevents those innovations from taking place, then I'm not sure what better term to apply than victimization.
We're already keeping the last 64 bits for thinking differently. Just how many bits does this thinking differently need?
And if automated hierachical topologies don't happen? My point is that we should allocate according to known need and not aspirations. If we do ever get to the stage of needing automated hierarchical topologies then we can reallocate, it's not hard.
The argument often given by the 'allocate a /48' advocates is that we are only using a small part of IPv6 and can always use a future tranche in a different way. I would make the same argument when it comes to allocating a /56 to a household - if it's not enough then we can always change.
History has been quite clear that underallocating any resource and then giving more is a far, far easier path than overallocating and then taking back.
Jay
--
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840