[100114] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Wilcox)
Wed Oct 17 18:51:58 2007
In-Reply-To: <4714DBDE.20607@psg.com>
Cc: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>,
North American Network Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:50:59 -0600
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 16 Oct 2007, at 09:42, Randy Bush wrote:
> my first thought on how to use it revolved around the idea that the
> devices inside my site are more diverse than those on the transit
> internet. therefore, if i can use 240/4 internally, certainly we will
> all be able to transit it. where this died was the realization
> that, if
> i want to transit 240/4, i am expecting all the devices in *your*
> network to be able to handle 240/4, which is not reasonable. so i
> guess
> i come down on the private use side of the how-to-use decision. i
> would
> be interested in hearing counter-arguments.
yup, this was my conclusion when i had a debate on this a while back
think of all the OS protocol stacks out there that may or may not
work (you can test it now, try a trace from your windows/linux/bsd/
osx box and see the different results)
then even if all vendors start releasing fixed stacks, imagine how
many non-upgradable network devices ($20 dsl routers, nat devices
etc) are out there that wont work
unfortunately i think this is a non-started for all except private
deployments
the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that this
buys you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.
Steve
