Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC

[Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>]

Option A) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases to implement 240/4
as unicast globally. At present consumption rates and based on the number
of entities in ARIN, RIPE, APNIC regions that could *immediately* take /18
to /16 sized blocks of it, please quantify exactly how many years this
amount of "new" IP space you predict to be useful before once again
reaching ipv4 exhaustion. End result: Problem not solved. Thus my analogy
of building a sand castle while the tide is coming in.

Option B) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases (yes, very
possibly much more time and more costly) to implement ipv6.


Even if option B is much more costly and time consuming, the end result
will be much better.



On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 14:48, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:

> Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > Quite simply, expecting the vast amount of legacy ipv4-only equipment
> > out there in the world that is 10, 15, 20 years old to magically
> > become compatible with the use of 240/4 in the global routing table is
> > a non viable solution. It is not a financial reality for many small to
> > medium sized ISPs in lower income countries.
> >
> > The amount of time and effort that would be required to implement your
> > proposal is much better spent on ipv6 implementation and various forms
> > of improved cgnat.
>
> In specific focus on 240/4
>
> Simultaneously claiming that enabling 240/4 as unicast involves
> difficulty that in comparison makes IPv6 (and then you add in CGNAT!)
> somehow more achievable is ridiculous.
>
> Regardless of the exact scenario.
>
> Joe