TID: FMail-W32 2.1.3.7-B20170919
RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
TZUTC: 0100
CHRS: CP850 2
MSGID: 2:280/5555 61e7fa89
REPLY: 2150.fido-ipv6@3:633/410 264d03ed
Hello Tony,

On Wednesday January 19 2022 18:20, you wrote to me:

 MvV>> Neither can I, but I can imagine some wanting/needing more than
 MvV>> a /60. The "rule" should be "give them so much they will never
 MvV>> come back for more". That wey they avoid having to make
 MvV>> administrative exceptions for some customers. There is enough to
 MvV>> give every customer a /56.

 TL> Yeah, there is that argument.  Over time, I can see myself using 3 or
 TL> 4 /64s. More than 16 is unlikely, unless I start doing a lot of funky
 TL> VPN stuff. ;)

That reminds me of: "640K ought te be enough for everyone".

That was DOS think. We got rid of that. Now 640M is meagre.

We also have to get rid of IPv4 think. On top of that list are:

1) NAT is not a security feature.
2) There is no shortage of addresses. Address space is no longer a scarce
commodity.

With the mind still in IPv4 think mode, giving out a /56 to everyone while the
vast majority will get no further than using 1 or 2% of that looks like a
terrible waste.

Then consider that "waste" is only an issue if there is shortage. With IPv6
there is no shortage of addreses. Thinking "waste" is IPv4 think. We have to
get rid of that.


Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/0 19/10 30/0 80/1 90/1 105/81 106/201 120/340 123/131
SEEN-BY: 153/7715 154/10 203/0 221/0 1 6 226/30 229/110 317 400 424
SEEN-BY: 229/426 428 550 664 700 240/1120 5832 249/206 250/1 266/512
SEEN-BY: 280/464 5003 5006 5555 282/464 1038 301/0 1 101 113 812 310/31
SEEN-BY: 317/3 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 640/1384
SEEN-BY: 712/848 920/1 2452/250 5019/40 5020/545 1042 12000 5053/58
SEEN-BY: 5058/104
PATH: 280/5555 301/1 229/426