[100190] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4 (MLC NOTE)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (S. Ryan)
Fri Oct 19 11:27:21 2007
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:25:58 -0700
From: "S. Ryan" <auser@mind.net>
To: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
CC: michael.dillon@bt.com, nanog@merit.edu, nanog-admin@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710181809270.28202-100000@bawx.pilosoft.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Did you all miss this post?
Thanks.
Alex Pilosov wroteth on 10/18/2007 3:26 PM:
> 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]
>
>
>
