About address allocating

[Nick Sayer]

Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> 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.

Sure, but let's not swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.
There are lots and lots and lots of ISPs that run small modem banks used
by dial-on-demand analog users who get dynamic IP addresses. I'm one of
them.
Having every one of those providers having to get a /48 for every single
modem they have is ludicrous overkill. The way the PPP RFCs for IPv6
read,
the path of least resistance is to give each modem _bank_ a /64. The
prefix
is sufficient to route to a specific bank. The dialup link will provide
its own EID, which has the added benefit of making
hijack-by-connection-reuse
less likely and means that such dynamic users who dial the same bank
probably
_do_ have a static IP address after all (since their EID is not
likely/supposed
to change).

No, we don't have to be misers with v6 address space like we did under
v4.
And yes, I think that anyone with a dedicated link of any kind really
ought to
get a /48. Even dialup customers who do the dedicated-dialup trick ought
to.
But I have no problem drawing the line at on-demand-dynamic-dialup
customers.
Just because a resource is plentiful doesn't _require_ us to waste it.