[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Matt.Carpenter@alticor.com]

> and I can't
> help but think that there will be an IP shortage somewhere in our solar
> system similar to what asia pacific is currently suffering under v4.
> But ooooh its 128 bits... it'll never run out, especially with properly
> monitored and allocated addressing, right fellas? Oh wait. *grumbles
> something about /48s assigned to children*

Since we want to plan for the solar-system, the galaxy, and beyond...  How
about Google-bit addressing?  That's
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

bits, and should carry us well into the next millenium, with addresses for
everyone regardless of race, color, gender, planet, vapor state or boiling
point.  Aside from the apparent search-engine copyright on the name, the
only problem is that each participating machine would need an EB of RAM to
house the connection table...

Please forgive the sarchasm.  I understand the concern, but would rather
not focus too much on it at this point in the allocation.  Let's worry
about what matters in the relatively near future, perhaps the next few
years.

Since 128 bits was chosen (we can save the arguments of whether it should
have been 1024 or 2048 for some other time) and this is the production
InternetV6 let's not be too stingy.  Crunch time can come later, perhaps in
some of the remaining 6 FP's.  I believe Gert's explanation was very
pertinent.  It's not all about address-conservation, but rather simplicity
by design.  I personally revel in that a site gets enough addresses to
avoid NAT unless desired, even for a site with a class B IPv4 range...
without paying through the nose or jumping through hoops.  It only aids in
v6 adoption, something that has been relatively slow to take place.

Once IPv6 is pushed out, we can start on V8 if running out of addresses is
a concern.