[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Mon Apr 4 21:27:59 CEST 2005
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 21:22 +0200, Oliver Bartels wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:17:04 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > >and we once thought 32 bits of address should be enough for ever > If this policy discussion continues, and continues, and continues ... > ... then 32 bits of address *will be* enough for ever. To put it in another perspective: If these policies cause 2000::/3 to be exhausted then there are 7 more tries left to do it all over again. And indeed the people in 2000::/3 who where early adopters will have the advantage of getting a huge space easily, just like in IPv4 land. But in IPv4 land there was not much left, in IPv6 there are another 7 tries to go before it is completely filled up... Now folks get over it ;) Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20050404/0e5c4c93/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]