[100145] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Galbraith)
Thu Oct 18 16:37:31 2007
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:17:37 -0500
From: "Brandon Galbraith" <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
To: "Alain Durand" <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: "Jon Lewis" <jlewis@lewis.org>,
"Stephen Wilcox" <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com>, michael.dillon@bt.com,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <C33D19F4.3F13%alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_3275_29293903.1192738657579
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 10/18/07, Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/07 12:53 PM, "Jon Lewis" <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
>
> > I could see bits of 240/4 perhaps being of use to large cable companies
> > for whom there just isn't enough 1918 space to address all their CPE
> > gear...and/or they really want unique addressing so that if/when
> networks
> > merge IP conflicts are avoided.
>
> I do work for one of those "large cable companies" and no, 240/4 is not
> useable for us either for the exact same reasons that you pointed out to
> explain why 240/4 will not work in public space: there are just too many
> devices that can't easily be upgraded.
>
> - Alain.
Alain,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Comcast started moving to IPv6 addressing
*because* they ran out of 10. space.
My 0.02: Hacking together IPv4 solutions involving retasking previously
reserved address space simply delays the inevitable exhaustion of said
address space.
-brandon
------=_Part_3275_29293903.1192738657579
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 10/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alain Durand</b> <<a href="mailto:alain_durand@cable.comcast.com">alain_durand@cable.comcast.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>On 10/18/07 12:53 PM, "Jon Lewis" <<a href="mailto:jlewis@lewis.org">jlewis@lewis.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>> I could see bits of 240/4 perhaps being of use to large cable companies<br>> for whom there just isn't enough 1918 space to address all their CPE
<br>> gear...and/or they really want unique addressing so that if/when networks<br>> merge IP conflicts are avoided.<br><br>I do work for one of those "large cable companies" and no, 240/4 is not<br>useable for us either for the exact same reasons that you pointed out to
<br>explain why 240/4 will not work in public space: there are just too many<br>devices that can't easily be upgraded.<br><br> - Alain.</blockquote><div><br>Alain,<br><br>Correct me if I'm wrong, but Comcast started moving to IPv6 addressing *because* they ran out of 10. space.
<br><br>My 0.02: Hacking together IPv4 solutions involving retasking previously reserved address space simply delays the inevitable exhaustion of said address space.<br><br>-brandon<br> </div><br></div><br>
------=_Part_3275_29293903.1192738657579--
