[136062] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy)
Mon Jan 31 23:31:57 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ETaMyoLROe761MQ0FT_RikAM3W+oUR_DjoNiT@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:31:43 -0600
From: Jeremy <jbaino@gmail.com>
To: Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, carlos@lacnic.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
-Jeremy
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
> > 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
> >
> > There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about
> > their plans for establishing connectivity with IPv6; so they can
> > commmunicate with IPv6-only hosts that will begin to emerge
> > later.
> >
>
> What organizations (eye networks) will do is layer NAT till the cows come
> home for some years to come. Buckle up!
>
> -Jack Carrozzo
>
