[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal

Jørgen Hovland wrote:
 > From the input I received I got the impression that you have to assign
> a /64 no matter what. So it means you use 2 IPs (or 10 in my case) and 
> toss the other 2 - 2^64 away and then continue with next customer and 
> assign a new /64 and so on. I hope I see the point of all this address 
> waste in a few years. In the mean time I'll just do it(tm).
> 

Hi,

*long time listener, first time speaking up'er*

I share the views of Mr. Hovland, using a /64 for networks that only
requires a few addresses seems like such a waste.
Personally, I use /126 for p2p links.

And, I see the point in 'we have more addresses than there are people in
this world'.
I haven't done the math for it, but if we waste 18446744073709551614
addresses for every single customer, will this stick?
Will we regret it sometime in the future?
(or rather; will our grandchildren think we were stupid in the future?)

<joke>
Me and a guy from work had a laugh, and visioned ourselvs being
old, and being interviewed by 'Discovery History' because we ran out of
IPv6 addresses saying:
"I remember I was a kid back then, but that's what I thought would happen..'
</joke>

-- 
Sincerely,
Espen Holm Nilsen