The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
marka at isc.org
Thu Sep 20 05:34:23 UTC 2012
In message <CAAAwwbW2OH0-CpsVwYRfDODvjOTAVaQ8WdLUSsqvShs5CoTUYQ at mail.gmail.com>
, Jimmy Hess writes:
> 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...
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
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG