[100164] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: 240/4 (MLC NOTE)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Pilosov)
Thu Oct 18 18:27:38 2007
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
cc: nanog@merit.edu, <nanog-admin@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0013B874B@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end.
By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least
once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not
contributing to signal.
I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't have something
new (not listed here) to say, can you please avoid posting to this thread?
If you disagree with me, please take it to nanog-futures.
Summary of arguments:
In favor of experimental use only:
Alain Durand: at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network
In favor of private use:
Randy Bush: if it works for you, why mark it experimental
Dillon: why shouldn't people use it if they can
In favor of no use at all:
Joe Greco: "it doesn't work now (today) on current-generation OSes, there
is no chance to get it to work in any shape of form by the time v4 space
is exhausted".
Steve Wilcox: "it will never work"
Mixed:
Daniel Senie: Allocate some as private, reserve rest as 'allocatable' once
vendors get the gear fixed to accomodate those who use as private
Additional points:
David Ulevitch: If it is ever designated rfc1918, it cannot ever become
public.
Many: It will buy us some time before v4 address space is
exhausted, and much less painful than v6 deployment
Many: Old gear cannot be v6-enabled, but it can be 240-enabled
Dillon: This is not our decision, this is IETF/IANA decision.
-alex [mlc chair]
