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

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:05:40AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> 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

	Never is such a long time....

--bill