[85717] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Reilly)
Sun Oct 16 10:28:36 2005
From: John Reilly <jr@inconspicuous.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:27:03 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Forgot sub to nanog-post..
-------- Forwarded Message --------
On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 22:02 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> I _really_ wish people would stop saying '"unlimited"' or 'almost
> infinite' when talking about IPv6 address space. It simply isn't
> true, even in the theoretical sense, and particularly given how
> address space is being allocated now. It also gives many people the
> wrong impression: that IPv6 addresses will mean every grain of sand
> in the Universe (or whatever) can have portable address space.
Am I mistaken in thinking that if shim6 (or something like it) did
exist, that portable address space could be allocated to everyone (maybe
with a different allocation policy?) to be used as (shim6) identifiers.
Then, a number of years down the line, if the company met certain
criteria they could get an ASN and announce the portable address space
as routing prefix if they desired?
John
