[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

>> Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.

>...within an address block, this is true.  However, what is being
>talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and
>there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with
>respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.

It is best to clarify what resource we want to conserve. I don't
think there is any need to conserve IPv4 addresses any more. 
Exponential growth is a think of the past and we have enough
IPv4 addresses to last 10 to 20 years. We also have a replacement
protocol, IPv6, that is already commercially deployed in Asia
and in Europe.

However, we might still want to conserve the number of entries
in the global routing table because of the impact on router
memory, router CPU and the time required to reload a full view
of the Internet when a router is restarted. If we refuse to give
DENIC a /24 from the recovered "Class C" swamp space we would
be saving a small amount of IPv4 address space but we might not
save any global routing table entries...

--Michael Dillon