[100166] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Oct 18 18:50:22 2007
In-Reply-To: <200710182122.l9ILMDPj029448@aurora.sol.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu (nanog list)
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:31:33 -0600
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Fixing devices so that they can accept 240/4 is a software fix
>> that can be done with a binary patch and no additional memory. And
>> there are a _lot_ of these devices.
>
> Sure, I agree there are. How does that number compare to the
> number of
> devices which can't or won't be upgraded to IPv4-240+?
I'm not sure what the problem is. If a machine isn't upgraded to
support 240/4, then you can't talk to it. I would imagine an ISP
could (for example) ensure its routers could handle 240/4 and then
configure those routers to use 240/4 for their loopback addresses,
thereby reducing that ISP's need of "regular" space (be it public or
private).
If someone is suggesting IANA allocate 240/4 to the RIRs as
"regular" /8s for subsequent allocations to ISPs or end users,
they're deeply confused.
Regards,
-drc
