Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant
>>>> address space.
>>> 
>>> There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with stupid allocation policies.
>> 
>> True. However, are you making the argument that any of the current or proposed allocation policies are, in fact, stupid in such a way that this is likely?
> 
> What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were they thinking".

But I can already say ?what the F*** were they thinking about /60.
I can kind of see it being valid on /56.
I have a harder time arguing about /52s, but once you go that far is there any meaningful difference that makes it worth the trouble not going to /48?

Besides, if /48s don?t become tomorrows what the f*** were they thinking, then it will be something else.

I will point out that nobody has said ?what the F*** were they thinking? when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said ?what the F*** were they thinking when they limited it to 640k.?

Owen