The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
jmaimon at ttec.com
Thu Sep 20 14:10:40 UTC 2012
George Herbert wrote:
> We could have started it at a more opportune time in the past. We could also have done other things like a straight IPv4-48 or IPv4-64, without the other protocol suite foo that's delayed IPv6 rollout. Operators could have either used larger baseball bats or more participating numbers to make some IPv6 protocol design go the other way. IETF could have realized they were in Epic Fail by Too Clever territory.
> All of these things are water under the bridge now. We have what we have. It being amusing to grouse about mistakes of the past does not magically change the present. We have rapidly vanishing IPv4 and no 240/4, IPv6, and no time. That is reality.
> Pining for 240/4 fjords is not a time machine to change the past.
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
What is not amusing is continued evidence that the lessons from this
debacle have not been learned.
Baking in bogonity is bad.
Predicting the (f)utility of starting multi-year efforts in the present
for future benefit is self-fulfilling.
Let us spin this another way. If you cannot even expect mild change such
as 240/4 to become prevalent enough to be useful, on what do you base
your optimism that the much larger changes IPv6 requires will?
More information about the NANOG