[182379] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Wed Jul 15 19:35:21 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>,
George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55A6A6D9.4080501@bogus.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>
>> The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the
>> community who created it.
>
> joel@ubuntu:~$ uname -a
> Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15
> 04:01:04 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> joel@ubuntu:~$ sudo ifconfig eth0:0 240.0.0.1/24
> SIOCSIFADDR: Invalid argument
> SIOCSIFFLAGS: Cannot assign requested address
> SIOCSIFNETMASK: Cannot assign requested address
>
So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to
make it so?
Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it
with use at your own risk status? Even now?
> now go test that on every exisitng ipv4 device on the planet that's not
> getting an upgrade.
Thanks to (continuing) shortsightedness that course of action is still
foreclosed.
>
> it doesn't extend the life of ipv4 usefully and it wouldn't have if we
> started 10 years ago either.
You dont know either of those.
However, by continuing to insist on them, you make it so.
>
> the goal in stringing along ipv4 is to not hose your current or
> potential customers rather than prevent still more obstacles to their
> success.
>
> joel
>
At this point, you are running the risk of conflating your goals with
your technical objections to the goals of others. And this has always
been the real underlying issue.
Joe
