| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
On 26/01/2008 02:33, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote: >> I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to know whether there >> is considerable pent-up demand that would be released with a wording tweak. > > <rant> > > i love the tradition of speaking for those not present. one can claim > anything! Presumably, there is some evidence supporting the claim made in the proposal and the authors are speaking at their request. Maybe the authors can speak up and explain the situation? [...] > at best, removing the 200 limit will allow a few hoarders to pick up > ipv6 space cheap which we will later complain about just as we complain > about legacy ipv4 holders today. cheap thrills. If IPv6 turns out to be damp squib then it makes no difference how much IPv6 address space anyone has. It will be irrelevant. On the other hand, if the deployment problems are solved then the networks with the space will need to use it rather than hoard it. > so sitting here tweaking some trivial words is a lazy and useless path. Yes, if the authors can't demonstrate the need they claim exists. Regards, Leo
