Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 03 August 2012 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30ECC21F8D65 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsnhx2cCd9lb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B530721F8C0A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83D66C9572; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:25:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:64:9184:45d4:f7ad:eb5d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69300216C33; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:25:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9512344DBF; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 04:25:00 +1000 (EST)
To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120802184436.87A0318C11F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAMm+Lwg2HgO-=9ED4vbmO+Vf9r6bYPcLDgfyMAyPdEPVgRm4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB949BEA-5BDB-401A-8A75-E9A9BDAA72A6@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:42:16 +0200." <FB949BEA-5BDB-401A-8A75-E9A9BDAA72A6@ripe.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:25:00 +1000
Message-Id: <20120803182500.1F9512344DBF@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:25:15 -0000

In message <FB949BEA-5BDB-401A-8A75-E9A9BDAA72A6@ripe.net>, Daniel Karrenberg w
rites:
> 
> On 02.08.2012, at 22:41, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> > ... That depends on whether the registry in question is dealing with a
> > scarce resource or a plentiful one. Having two registries handing out
> > IPv4 addresses at this point would be very very bad. Having more than
> > one place you can get an IPv6 from would not worry me at all. ...
> 
> IPv4 addresses used to be regarded as non-scarce not so long ago.

I don't know what planet you have been living on but it was clear
IPv4 addresses were a scarce resource 2+ decades ago longer than
some IETF attendees have been alive.  IPv6 was started because they
were a scarce resource that would run out in the foreseeable future.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org