Randy Bush wrote:
<personal opinions>If we don't do this are we really saying that we don't expect everyone who currently has an IPv4 address allocation to have an IPv6 allocation at some stage?that's an open question, isn't it? we are facing a distinct possibility of a massively natted ipv4 network. i am extremely displeased by this possibility. but that does not mean that i deny it.
As far as I can see we have three possible scenarios we need to consider:1) IPv6 is a dismal failure and massively natted IPv4 networks become the norm. If this happens (and I agree it's possible) then handing out an IPv6 address block that has minimal utility and value isn't a problem.
2) IPv6 is a raging success and IPv4 addressing is relegated to history.3) We have a hybrid network where IPv6 and IPv4 (perhaps with massive NAT) coexist for a long time.
If either of 2) or 3) happens then the address space we allocated under this policy will have been warranted.
I understand the desire by all of us to allocate address space prudently but we are talking about allocating at most 1/2097152th of the available space under this proposal.