Re: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)

[Ian.Meikle@localhost]

address-policy-wg-admin@localhost wrote on 28/07/2006 11:58:12:


> Hi.
> Don't think 200 /48 is totally unrealistic. There is a point in
> keeping the global ipv6 routing table small.
> Things however depends on how rapidly the industry will adapt ipv6
> into their equipment.
> Also In the near future we will without a doubt see more connected
> household appliances. At the moment It's really, really hard to predict
> growth rate. I would say 200 /48  within 2 years.. Maybe, maybe not :-)
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> - --Dennis Lundström
>   GippNET AB (AS34537)

Any figure appears arbitrary, and risks imposing a business model on those 
who want to deploy IPv6 that does not fit their organisation. On the other 
hand, the lack of a metric makes things harder for RIRs, and I can see why 
one has been specified, besides the comments already made regarding the 
size of the global routing table.

IPv6 is a hard sell. There is no application that requires it, and nobody 
worries enough about resource exhaustion until it's too late. This is as 
true for IPv4 as it is for oil. If we want to encourage adoption then we 
shouldn't put unreasonable barriers in place.

Ian