[136073] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Tue Feb 1 00:23:27 2011
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:49:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: Jeremy <jbaino@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=d8uBPRVBoN0U6jntz9o2da17D2w6DuE-cKwhS@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: carlos@lacnic.net, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
> 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)
I think it has been discussed at various levels, but would likely have
been dismissed for one or more of the following reasons:
1. A lot of people filter packets and/or prefixes 224/3 or 240/4 out of
habit, right, wrong, or otherwise, so space from 240/4 is likely to have
lots of reachability problems.
2. The effort expended by people to solve reachability problems from space
they'd get out of 240/4 would be better put toward moving to v6.
3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a year.
jms
