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

Mark Andrews marka at
Thu Sep 20 05:34:23 UTC 2012

In message <CAAAwwbW2OH0-CpsVwYRfDODvjOTAVaQ8WdLUSsqvShs5CoTUYQ at>
, Jimmy Hess writes:
> On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at> 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...

The work to fix this on most OS is minimal.  The work to ensure
that it could be used safely over the big I Internet is enormous.
It's not so much about making sure new equipment can support it
than getting servers that don't support it upgraded as well as every
box in between.

> > That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict.
> > Joe
> --
> -JH
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at

More information about the NANOG mailing list