nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:49:18 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix* the problem here)
I think it has been discussed at various levels, but would likely have been dismissed for one or more of the following reasons: 1. A lot of people filter packets and/or prefixes 224/3 or 240/4 out of habit, right, wrong, or otherwise, so space from 240/4 is likely to have lots of reachability problems.
2. The effort expended by people to solve reachability problems from space they'd get out of 240/4 would be better put toward moving to v6.
3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a year. jms
Current thread:
- Re: quietly...., (continued)
- Re: quietly.... Jimmy Hess (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Carrozzo (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Jeremy (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Cameron Byrne (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Martin Millnert (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Martin Millnert (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Jimmy Hess (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Justin M. Streiner (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- RE: quietly.... George Bonser (Jan 31)
- RE: quietly.... George Bonser (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Joel Jaeggli (Jan 31)
- RE: quietly.... George Bonser (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Joe Provo (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: quietly.... Jorge Amodio (Jan 31)