[137613] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Thu Feb 17 12:01:40 2011
In-Reply-To: <54CC2B0D-EAE0-4B79-AF19-20BBD233A581@istaff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:01:34 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us =
a few more months, but:
>>
>> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of w=
hich about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses =
can be reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't =
overlap.
>
> Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address
> space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and then
> considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the communi=
ty
> (noted here: <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space=
/>),
> I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet communi=
ty.
> The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular routin=
g
> table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.
>
> 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 (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority
> basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
> to make this happen? =A0There's a chance that it could be made usable wit=
h
> sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
> if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.
>
+1
If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.
As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
a strategy. Seeing 240/4 actually work would be nice, but i have
already concluded it does not fit my exhaustion timeline given how
many edge devices will never support it.
If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.
Cameron
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> /John
>
> (my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)
>
>
>
