[137616] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Thu Feb 17 12:46:55 2011
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:46:46 -0800
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=UzEQB2DYKxHVrxaKfasPHGfDmXJp1p-GJ0FCf@mail.gmail.com>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@gmail.com>,
"John Curran" <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
> you might make some progress.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
