[155317] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 End User Fee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 4 13:36:25 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120804100111.GS12615@leitl.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:31:02 -0700
To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 4, 2012, at 03:01 , Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of =
transferring part or all of their registration rights to you.
>>=20
>> But in no case did you pay for the addresses themselves unless you =
are silly enough to think that a person can own an integer.
>=20
> IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
> central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
>=20
There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.
> Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
> by offering address space sufficiently large while
> co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.=20
Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy =
enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).
> I hope eventually somebody will start
> tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS=20
> onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't =
make a lot of sense to me.
Owen
