[182361] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 15 15:05:30 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <55A6974D.2010102@ttec.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:05:15 -0700
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> In message =
<CANjVB-jbtc4V5yba0xtGA7N5geQcz86hvydj4J9J8UxhzMMEZw@mail.gmail.com>
>=20
>> We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly
>> to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone.
>=20
> That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
>=20
> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody =
other then the ipv6 adherents.
But it wouldn=92t be right now. It would be after everyone put lots of =
effort into updating lots of systems so that they could support those 16 =
/8s.
By the time you=92ve done that, you might as well have focused that =
effort on making those same systems do IPv6.
> Seems like procrastination is only bad when its your baby.
Not really=85 This isn=92t a question of procrastination or not. It=92s =
a question of given that roughly the same effort is required to do thing =
A or thing B
and thing A (class E) leads nowhere in the long run while thing B =
provides a permanent solution, it makes much more sense to focus said =
effort
on thing B than to postpone thing B in favor of thing A.
> The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the =
community who created it.
Not really. I think if you really consider what would be required for =
deployment of class E, you=92ll find that there truly is no there there.
Owen
