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

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> >> 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.

"IPv6 usage growth will also transform conservation of IPv4 in a
non-issue."


> Exponential growth is a think of the past and we have enough
> IPv4 addresses to last 10 to 20 years.

100% Agree.
I dont want IPv6 because the world is running out of addresses, i want
IPv6 because IPv6 is better than IPv4.


> We also have a replacement
> protocol, IPv6, that is already commercially deployed in Asia
> and in Europe.

I usually tend to say: IPv6 is not a new protocol, it is a new protocol
*version*...


> 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...

surely...


> --Michael Dillon
>
>


./Carlos
--------------                             IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt
            Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

 "Internet is just routes (131586/456), naming (millions) and... people!"