Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
Ricky Beam
jfbeam at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 00:13:42 UTC 2015
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
> 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?
No. The point is it's been wired into everything that has ever existed
that it's an invalid address. Even if the "experimental" had been moved 15
years ago, there would still be devices today that CANNOT use one of those
addresses, and further, is 100% incapable of talking to anything using one.
Interestingly, Cisco, who proposed using the space, still has those
restrictions embedded in everything they make. (Of course, their non-nexus
switches still have token-ring and fddi translation vlans hardcoded.)
Factor in the people who cannot do math and think multicast is "anything
greater than 224.0.0.0", and you have a section of address space that is
permanently unusable. (like 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24) I'm not going to
name names, but I've see proprietary code -- from more than one source --
that did that, because "bge [branch greater or equal] is a single
instruction." If you think that's a "lame optimization", then you should
be hunting down *everything* responsible for SLAAC.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list