About address allocating

[Lucky Green]

Nick Sayer wrote:
> But I would like to inquire about providers of the bare-bones $19.95 (or
> free
> and add-sponsored) v.90 connectivity. The vast majority of these
> customers
> are connecting one computer to the Internet on-demand. Surely a /64
> is good enough for them...? Who honestly believes that I need 65,535
> subnets
> of 2^64 addresses to hook my laptop up to the net from my hotel room at
> USENIX? :-)

Will you need a /48 for your laptop? Probably not. But I thought the 128 bit
address space was chosen to permanently doing away with having to beg for
address space. I well remember the early discussions about IPng in which
some advocated for a moderate, rather than a massive, increase in address
space. They lost the argument. And I happen to be glad they did. With the
address space available under IPv6, there is no reason whatsoever to not
give everybody the address space they desire.

Please, there is plenty of address space for everybody. Let's not revisit
the pains of IPv4.

--Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>

  "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
   upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
  - Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446
  http://www.citizensofamerica.org/missing.ram