Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, John Curran <jcurran () istaff org> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> > > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> > > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
> > Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> > packet like this.
>
> So, it won't work for you.  Is there any reason that it shouldn't
> be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than
> "Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?

I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.

My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
benefit.  Yes, some linux may work.  But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
work today.  Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
240/4 solving any of your problems or in any way changing the need to
for IPv6 migration.  This is where the slipperly slope and expectation
settings start.

Cameron