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

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 17 11:01:34 CST 2011


On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

+1

If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.

As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
a strategy.  Seeing 240/4 actually work would be nice, but i have
already concluded it does not fit my exhaustion timeline given how
many edge devices will never support it.

If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.

Cameron
=======
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=======

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




More information about the NANOG mailing list