SV: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]

> I am not implying that we will run out of addresses tomorrow, only 
> that we will run out. 

For the purposes of making policy, magnitude matters. I agree that
we will eventually run out of IPv6 addresses. Will it be 1000 years
from now? 500 years? 100 years? The magnitude of the time period 
matters because I do not believe that RIPE is making policy for
1000 years or 500 years or even 100 years. If RIPE can repair the
IPv6 policy into something that will work for the next 5 years,
then RIPE is doing a fine job. If that results in accelerated uptake
of /32's which leads to a projected runout of 2000::/3 50 years
from now, then I do not see any problem whatsoever from the point
of view of IPv6 address space exhaustion. If that were the case,
then the prudent way to deal with it is to run with the new
relaxed policy for 5 years, 1/10th of the runout period, and then
decide what to do with the benefits of hindsight.

Anybody who claims that there is an issue with waste of addresses
or with conservation of addresses, MUST demonstrate that issue
with hard numbers and projected runout dates, otherwise we should
ignore them because they do not know what they are talking about.

IPv6 is not IPv4. Quantity changes into quality. It is like adding
heat to water. At some point the quantity of heat causes the water
to undergo a qualitative transformation and we no longer have water
any more. The size of the IPv6 address space means that IPv6 is
qualitatively different from IPv4 and our policies must recognize
that reality.

--Michael Dillon