[100126] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Thu Oct 18 03:20:40 2007
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:12:03 +0200
From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
Cc: "Church, Charles" <cchurc05@harris.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>,
"Church, Charles" <cchurc05@harris.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20071018024831.GF8125@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 18.10 10:48, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up
> > valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep
> > in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do
> > stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to pay huge amounts of money to
> > support a peer crazy enough to try this. And until tested, there is no
> > guarantee that hardware based routing platforms (your PFCs, etc) can
> > route Class E addresses as if they're unicast.
>
> So how about pulling a reachability test and announcing a few /19's from
> 240/4, stick a website on it and get people to report back?
If there was serious community interest in this, I am sure the RIPE NCC
could be persuaded to test this as part of the well-oiled de-bogonising
machinery. this immediately provides automated measurements as well.
It may take a little longer than sual to set up as we may want to ask
all our de-bogonising peers whether they are OK with this just to be sure.
Daniel
PS: Personally I am not convinced that this space will ever become useful for
global routing. But we won't know for sure until we have tried it.
