[136080] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 1 00:59:41 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101311942330.3637@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:56:35 -0800
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Cc: carlos@lacnic.net, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
>=20
>> 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)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
Also, many systems will not accept this traffic or configuration as =
hard-coded system
parameters.
> 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.
>=20
Not to mention the software updates required to make it functional would =
exceed the
software updates necessary for IPv6 _AND_ it has no lasting future.
> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a =
year.
>=20
Actually, if last year's consumption is any indicator, it's more like 10 =
months and
given the accelerating consumption of IPv4 overall, I'd say less than 9 =
is not
unlikely. I'm betting you're talking about more than 9 months to get the
software and reachability issues resolved.
Owen
