IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Feb 17 08:44:04 CST 2011
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
>> 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
> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
> and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act together and deploy
> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
Not, what I'm saying is that we've been considering this matter for more than
10 years, and as old as her machine is, it would have been patched once since
then if we had bothered to note that "Reserved for Future Use" should be treated
as unicast space.
The same argument applies now: unless there is a reason to save 240/8, it should
at least be redefined to be usable in some manner so that we don't repeat the
same argument 5 years from now.
More information about the NANOG