IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Feb 17 07:08:50 CST 2011


On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few more months, but:
> 
> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses can be reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't overlap.

Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address 
space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and then
considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community 
(noted here: <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>), 
I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet community.
The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular routing 
table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.

Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be 
made usable (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority 
basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
to make this happen?  There's a chance that it could be made usable with 
sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.

/John

(my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)





More information about the NANOG mailing list