[136103] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Carlos M. Martinez)
Tue Feb 1 07:02:14 2011
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:01:21 -0200
From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <7E73A94E-BF1E-4F48-9243-448F69784016@delong.com>
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: carlosm3011@gmail.com
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: carlos@lacnic.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think the ship has sailed for the class E /8s. Using them will require
significant effort and that effort, both time and money, is better spent
on deploying IPv6.
regards
Carlos
On 2/1/11 9:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>>> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
>>> year.
>>>
>>> jms
>> If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
>> been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
>> update on the CPE is all it would take. The systems involved would
>> never see it.
>>
>>
> If they could do code updates on the CPE, then, they could use RFC-1918.
>
> The problem is that code-updating that much CPE is, well, impractical to
> say the least.
>
> Owen
