Hi Peter, ...
before diving into these or before selecting different options, shouldn't the overall goals of, say, "fairness" and "sustainability" be broken down into a tangible set of criteria against which the solutions could be evaluated? This would also ease the assessment of potential subversion tactics.
I agree with your comment, to think about "fairness" and "sustainability". But the latter, IHMO contradicts with Randy's comment, that IPv4 has no future (to which I agree also). In the first of Sander's questions, there were no one favouring IPv6 requirements with IPv4 allocations, so that's out of scope right now, UNLESS we're reopening that topic again (which I won't do). What's left over, is to look into the "fairness", which is achieved partly, that I request and monitor, that everybody still requesting IPv4 plays by the rules: For allowing some "sustainability" for a couple of years, everybody has to deploy multiplexing techniques for newly allocated adress ranges. [This might introduce IPv6 requirements through a backdoos, as deploying multiplexing techniques may prove as expensive as migrating to IPv6, or even more.] Regards, Andreas -- -- Andreas Schachtner afs Holding GmbH communication technologies & solutions http://afs-com.de/ Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund