[181170] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?Q?Jonas_Bj=C3=B6rk?=)
Wed Jun 17 21:46:08 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?utf-8?Q?Jonas_Bj=C3=B6rk?= <mr.jonas.bjork@me.com>
In-reply-to: <op.x0eggx2gtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 03:39:29 +0200
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
>> shortsighted.
>=20
> I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would have t=
o be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most* in-use devic=
es would NEVER see such an update. Even from companies that do still exist. (=
Sadly, those are also devices that aren't going to see IPv6, either.)=20
Most stuff out there do only care about that its subnet mask OR's up correct=
ly with its ip and gw. Poof, there did 99.9 per cent of all devices get excl=
uded. Most stuff that do use and/or misuse this freightening block of darkes=
t cyberspace are either high end network equipment (who drop) or some end us=
ers/mcast sender which are behind NAT anyway.
I believe it's a great idea. Let's at least try it out, like an alpha-test. W=
e choose a temporary /8 (easy to remember) and divide it into /16s or less, d=
epending on how many interested candidates we are able to raise. After being=
approved by IANA we begin advertising our new prefixes for a finite amount o=
f time. If the world ends, or is about to, we stop.
I believe we would bump into minor caveats but ISP's are beginning to NAT th=
eir end customers due to the lack of free ips and I wouldn't want to live in=
a world where that was the norm. This madness has to stop and v6 won't salv=
ate us for yet another total sonar eclipse or three.
Let us at least try it out - if it goes well we have bought us some time. If=
not, revert.
Thank you for listening.
br /Mr Bjork=
