[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site

>> classically, if they have no plan to be connected, they don't get
>> address space.
> ...and do you think this is how it should be?

in ipv4, yes.  

in ipv6, i am ambivalent.  i don't believe v6 space is effectively
so vast it can be wasted, especially with magic boundaries at /64
and /48.  i also don't believe in site-local routing.  though it
was called site local _addressing_.  the ivtf keeps confusing
addressing and routing and neglecting the interactions and the
implications.  but i have no problem with an rfc 1918 equivalent
in ipv6.

on the other hand, it's can be fun to ask the question this way.
since you will never be connected to the internet, why not just
use whatever address space comes to mind?  oh, you're worried
about collisions?  with whom?  you said you were not connecting to
the internet.

randy