[137590] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Thu Feb 17 09:44:08 2011
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <38565.1297953177@localhost>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:44:04 -0500
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
>=20
>> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps =
the
>> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to =
be
>> made usable
>=20
> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to =
Windows 8
> and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act together and =
deploy
> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
Not, what I'm saying is that we've been considering this matter for more =
than=20
10 years, and as old as her machine is, it would have been patched once =
since
then if we had bothered to note that "Reserved for Future Use" should be =
treated
as unicast space. =20
The same argument applies now: unless there is a reason to save 240/8, =
it should
at least be redefined to be usable in some manner so that we don't =
repeat the=20
same argument 5 years from now.
/John
