240/4 (MLC NOTE)

S. Ryan auser at mind.net
Fri Oct 19 15:25:58 UTC 2007


Did you all miss this post?

Thanks.

Alex Pilosov wroteth on 10/18/2007 3:26 PM:
> Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end. 
> 
> By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least
> once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not
> contributing to signal.
> 
> I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't have something
> new (not listed here) to say, can you please avoid posting to this thread?
> 
> If you disagree with me, please take it to nanog-futures.
> 
> Summary of arguments:
> 
> In favor of experimental use only:
> Alain Durand: at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network
> 
> In favor of private use: 
> Randy Bush: if it works for you, why mark it experimental
> Dillon: why shouldn't people use it if they can
> 
> In favor of no use at all:
> Joe Greco: "it doesn't work now (today) on current-generation OSes, there
> is no chance to get it to work in any shape of form by the time v4 space
> is exhausted".
> Steve Wilcox: "it will never work"
> 
> Mixed:
> Daniel Senie: Allocate some as private, reserve rest as 'allocatable' once 
> vendors get the gear fixed to accomodate those who use as private
> 
> Additional points:
> David Ulevitch: If it is ever designated rfc1918, it cannot ever become 
> public.
> 
> Many: It will buy us some time before v4 address space is 
> exhausted, and much less painful than v6 deployment
> 
> Many: Old gear cannot be v6-enabled, but it can be 240-enabled
> 
> Dillon: This is not our decision, this is IETF/IANA decision.
> 
> -alex [mlc chair]
> 
> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list