The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 04:58:21 UTC 2012


On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:

> Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
> IPv6 deployment been working out?

"getting a single extra /4"   is considered,  not enough  of a return
to make the change.

I don't accept that, but as far as  rehabilitating 240/4,  that lot
was already cast, I think, and the above was the likely reason,  there
have been plenty of objections which all amounted to   "too much
trouble to lift the pen"  and change it.....

So if you want some address space rehabilitated, by a change of
standard, it apparently needs to be more than a /4.


There is still no technical reason that 240/4  cannot be
rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
anything at all with 240/4,  and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
far, if not for those,  it could possibly be reopened as unicast IPv4,
and be well-supported by new equipment, before the percentage of
IPv6-enabled network activity reaches a double digit percentage...



> That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict.
> Joe
--
-JH



More information about the NANOG mailing list