[137618] 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 12:51:58 2011
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13BC1@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:48:35 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
>> 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. =A0Seeing 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.
>
> 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.
>
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
Cameron
