Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

["Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:
> So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to  
> make it so?
>
> Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it  
> with use at your own risk status? Even now?

No. The point is it's been wired into everything that has ever existed  
that it's an invalid address. Even if the "experimental" had been moved 15  
years ago, there would still be devices today that CANNOT use one of those  
addresses, and further, is 100% incapable of talking to anything using one.

Interestingly, Cisco, who proposed using the space, still has those  
restrictions embedded in everything they make. (Of course, their non-nexus  
switches still have token-ring and fddi translation vlans hardcoded.)

Factor in the people who cannot do math and think multicast is "anything  
greater than 224.0.0.0", and you have a section of address space that is  
permanently unusable. (like 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24) I'm not going to  
name names, but I've see proprietary code -- from more than one source --  
that did that, because "bge [branch greater or equal] is a single  
instruction." If you think that's a "lame optimization", then you should  
be hunting down *everything* responsible for SLAAC.