[Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]

Bill Stewart nonobvious at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 22:59:24 UTC 2010

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.  One of the great things
about IPv6's address space being mindbogglingly large is that there's
plenty of it to experiment with.  If the ITU wants an RIR-sized block
to do RIR-like work, so what?  If they wanted a /2 or /4 I'd be
concerned, or if there were many organizations out there that wanted
RIR-sized chunks, but ITU's close enough to unique that they're not
going to cause the space to run out.   And sure, maybe they're
sufficiently outdated and irrelevant that they could get by with a
/16, but it might be interesting to have somebody assigning IPv6
addresses as :prefix:e164:host or whatever.  (Admittedly, that made
more sense back when e.164 addresses were 12 digits as opposed to the
current 15.)

             Thanks;     Bill

Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.

More information about the NANOG mailing list