nanog mailing list archives

Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8


From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:34:23 +1000


In message <CAAAwwbW2OH0-CpsVwYRfDODvjOTAVaQ8WdLUSsqvShs5CoTUYQ () mail gmail com>
, Jimmy Hess writes:
On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:

Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
IPv6 deployment been working out?

"getting a single extra /4"   is considered,  not enough  of a return
to make the change.

I don't accept that, but as far as  rehabilitating 240/4,  that lot
was already cast, I think, and the above was the likely reason,  there
have been plenty of objections which all amounted to   "too much
trouble to lift the pen"  and change it.....

So if you want some address space rehabilitated, by a change of
standard, it apparently needs to be more than a /4.


There is still no technical reason that 240/4  cannot be
rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
anything at all with 240/4,  and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
far, if not for those,  it could possibly be reopened as unicast IPv4,
and be well-supported by new equipment, before the percentage of
IPv6-enabled network activity reaches a double digit percentage...

The work to fix this on most OS is minimal.  The work to ensure
that it could be used safely over the big I Internet is enormous.
It's not so much about making sure new equipment can support it
than getting servers that don't support it upgraded as well as every
box in between.

That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict.
Joe
--
-JH

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


Current thread: