[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

Michael.Dillon at radianz.com writes:

> > If these policies cause 2000::/3 to be exhausted then there are 7 more
> > tries left to do it all over again.

> This is the essential characteristic of IPv6 that so many 
> of us, weaned on IPv4, seem to forget. We need to keep this
> fact uppermost in our minds at all times. Even this subset
> of IPv6 is much bigger than the IPv4 space. So we can afford
> to be generous and, in fact, we can afford to make mistakes.
> If we err, we should err on the side of being slightly too
> generous because if 2000::/3 runs out, we can try again,
> older but wiser.

I have a very basic problem with this view point. It becomes an excuse
to brush aside serious concerns about a particular policy under the
"well, if we botch it, we can try again later" argument.

It's one thing to have a fall back plan to deal with unforeseen
problems. It's quite another to recklessly move in a direction with
significant long-term implications just because "we can always try
again later".

> This means that we should not be excessively concerned with
> conserving address space or wasting addresses. It is entirely
> appropriate to give a /32 to anyone who might be some sort
> of an ISP, either traditional or some new type, like Google
> or BMW or Cadburys.

And, do you have an estimate of how many such "ISPs" exist today, or
will exist in 10-20 years? E.g., are we talking about 10,000 entities
(not scary), or 1 million (scary to me).

Thomas