[100125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alastair Johnson)
Wed Oct 17 23:09:43 2007
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:04:46 +1000
From: Alastair Johnson <aj@sneep.net>
To: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com>
CC: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>,
North American Network Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <AE08A075-25BC-4D8A-92E7-71EED7052BEE@packetrade.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> 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.
I can see a reasonable amount of demand for 240/4 with carriers in a
post-v4 exhaustion world. This would reduce the issues of having
overlapping RFC1918 space (e.g. multiple VRFs of 10/8) and allow for
simple contiguous networks in private clouds. A particularly
interesting example is for numbering IPTV STBs.
This may also be useful for service providers wanting to do effectively
'site NAT' when they can't gain any more v4 resource, but still need to
get v4 clients access to the v4 net somehow. Again this prevents
duplicate or overlapping addresses internally.
I definitely support handing 240/4 into private network use; but as many
have pointed out it is too tainted for public Internet use. While the
RIRs never guaranteed reachability, I think this would be taking it a
little too far.
aj.