240/4

Thu Oct 18 18:21:28 UTC 2007

On 18 Oct 2007, at 09:34, <michael.dillon at bt.com>  
<michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

>
>> Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact  
>> injection.
>
> You get a D on those facts because you did not review the  
> "literature",
> did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
> investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
> that have been patched to support 240/4.

step awaaaay from the crack pipe...

Joe's facts were excellent. I read his email and thought "wow, this  
will kill this thread for sure"

why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,  
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK

so, as using these IPs publically isnt feasible why bother privately.  
you may as well use RFC1918 or IPv6. the latter whilst not without  
issues is at least being rolled out as part of a series of standards  
that are 10+yrs old

i am really struggling with some of the logic being given here. more  
specifically the omissions in that logic are glaring.

>  not attempt to engineer a solution that will work for everybody
..
> not our reponsibility to fix every problem out there
..
> I believe that people are not that stupid.
..
> We do not have a good reason to deny them that possibility.
..
> This is easy for vendors to fix.
..
> It is a trivial amount of work for the IETF to release the address  
> space
..
> removing the 240/4 blockages could also be considered a trivial  
> level of effort.
..
> those of us who do not want or need 240/4 addresses can ignore it.
..
> The cost is effectively zero in the first case,
..
> why should anyone try and convert them to the one true Internet  
> architecture?

i think you are somewhat deluded.

Steve