Some thoughts on 240/4

Fri Oct 19 15:00:02 UTC 2007

In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:20:43AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> So.  There are mine.  You probably have others you would add to the
> list.  I think I can speak for Vince and Dave when I say that we should
> consider these cases as we are actually removing 240.0.0.0/4 from our
> bogon filters, because it's all academic if we don't change our code now.

I have avoided the longer thread, so I thought replying to yours
might be a better option.

I think the discussion of what to do with 240.0.0.0/4 is premature.
We need to get the code fixed, that is the most important item at
this time.  When we get closer to needing 240.0.0.0/4 we can evaluate
at that time how much of the code has been fixed, and what the risk
is to deployment.  By the time we need it we may find 95% of the
devices have been fixed, or we may find 5%.  The problem is we
neither know the timeframe in which we need it, nor do we know how
fast vendors can get it fixed.

In order to have the most options I applaud Vince for running this
through the IETF, and I would ask everyone on this list to make it
a checklist item for your very next vendor meeting.  This is a small
change, vendors will make it, but only if customers ask for it.
Ask for patched software today and we'll be much better off tomorrow.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071019/881fd01d/attachment.sig>