Hi, I support the concerns of Florian. We need addresses for addressing AND ROUTING. In the original design a few bits had been reserved for routing purposes in the IPv6 address scheme just to facilitate routing in the future. These bits completely disappeared -- which is not a a problem in the first phase of the transition, where we are now; however the missing functinality will case problems as the Internet will further grow. Jim, probably you are better expert in this field than me - what do you foresee about scaling of routing and the possibilities of chosing between different backbone service providers in the future? Best, G�za <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Florian Weimer <<a href="mailto:fweimer@bfk.de">fweimer@bfk.de</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> * Jim Reid: <div class="im"> > If the Internet doles out a billion /64s every day -- several orders > of magnitude more than any forseeable assignment rate -- it will take > 50 million years to deplete the IPv6 address space. I'm happy to leave > that problem to the next generation. :-) </div>There have been suggestions to use multiple /24s for each ISP using certain IPv6 deployment strategies. �Exhaustion isn't so remote anymore if such efforts become widespread. -- Florian Weimer � � � � � � � �<<a href="mailto:fweimer@bfk.de">fweimer@bfk.de</a>> BFK edv-consulting GmbH � � � <a href="http://www.bfk.de/" target="_blank">http://www.bfk.de/</a> Kriegsstra�e 100 � � � � � � �tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-721-96201-1" value="+49721962011">+49-721-96201-1</a> D-76133 Karlsruhe � � � � � � fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-721-96201-99" value="+497219620199">+49-721-96201-99</a> </blockquote></div>